1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Teaching Sunday on Eschatology

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by evangelist6589, Apr 10, 2014.

  1. thisnumbersdisconnected

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    OR, I knew you wouldn't agree with me, and it would be a waste of time for me to go through your post, point by point, and show you how you have ignored or discounted Scripture, while asserting falsely that somehow I make some Scripture contradict other Scripture. We could go back and forth like that for days and not make a dent in each other's arguments.

    By the way, your repost is a continued denial of what the Bible obviously says.

    Tell you want: When we rise in the air to meet Christ in the cloud, before the Tribulation starts, I'll point over at you, smile, and say "Told ya so!" And you'll laugh back.
     
  2. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64

    Sadly you are taking the traditional dispensational approach. You have presented not one passage of Scripture that justifies the remarks of your last post but insist I have
    It is you who are ignoring Scripture and/or misinterpreting and misapplying Scripture. You and dispensationalists completely ignore John 5:28, 29 which clearly teaches a general resurrection of all the dead followed by the general judgment. That is the only possible correct interpretation of that passage unless you try to force fit it to dispensational error. Furthermore it is perfectly consistent with the description of the White Throne Judgment in Revelation 20. Read that passage if you dare and then deny what I am saying:

    John 5:28, 29
    28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
    29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


    Furthermore, it is you and dispensationalism who misapply the passage John 14:1-3. You insist that this passage is the promise of the "Rapture". With all respect due that is utter rubbish. There is nothing in this passage that even implies a resurrection of the body much less a pre-trib rapture and I present sufficient context to show that you are wrong. The passage simply states that the believer will be with Jesus Christ. Living believers are now indwell with the Holy Spirit. Those believers who have died through time are even now in the presence of God.

    John 14:1-11
    1. Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
    2. In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
    3. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
    4. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
    5. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
    6. Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
    7. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
    8. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
    9. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
    10.Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
    11. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.


    There is not a single passage of Scripture which teaches a "snatching away" of the Church prior to a period of tribulation. The Church has endured tribulation since it was established and will endure tribulation until God brings time as we know it to a close.


    I posted Scripture which you are denying. That is shameful.

    When we meet Him we will immediately return to stand with all before the Great White Throne!
     
  3. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    The Pretribulation Rapture of the Church, Really?

    The following was written some years back when I had occasion to teach the Book of Revelation to a men's SS Class.

    Dispensational theology teaches that the Church will be removed or ‘raptured’ from the earth prior to what they call the ‘Great Tribulation’ which will last seven years. At the end of this tribulation period Jesus Christ will return to establish the millennial kingdom. Covenant premillennialists believe that the Church will remain on earth until the return of Jesus Christ at which time He will establish the millennial kingdom. Amillennialists believe and postmillennialists in general believe that the Church will remain on earth until Jesus Christ returns at which time He will create the new heavens and new earth. There are some who believe the Church will be present during part of the tribulation period but will be removed prior to the most severe part of the tribulation.

    Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism [page 148] writes concerning the rapture: The distinction between Israel and the church leads to the belief that the church will be taken from the earth before the beginning of the Tribulation [which in one major sense concerns Israel]. Pretribulationism has become a part of the normative dispensational eschatology. Originally this was due to the emphasis of the early writers and teachers on the immanency of the Lord; more lately it has been connected with the dispensational conception of the distinctiveness of the church.

    Walvoord {Major Bible Prophecies. page 282} makes a similar argument: If the question be asked: Will the church be raptured before end-time events? it becomes very important to define the church as an entity that is distinct from Israel or saints in general. In prophetic passages concerning the Tribulation, both Israelites and Gentiles are described, and some of them have faith in Christ and form a godly remnant. If they are part of the church, then the church is in the Tribulation, and the whole question as to whether the church goes through the Tribulation becomes moot.

    However, let us look at the passage that some dispensationalists claim is a picture of Christ coming for His Church:

    Revelation 4:1-2, KJV
    1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
    2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.


    Notice first of all that John alone is told to Come up hither . John alone, in the spirit, was taken to heaven. Nothing in this passage bears any resemblance to other passages that purportedly describe the ‘rapture’ of the Church. No mention of the trump of God and the voice of the archangel that accompany the descent of the Lord for His Church in 1 Thessalonians 4:16. There is no coming of Christ as indicated in 1 Corinthians 15:23, no sound of the last trumpet as indicated in 1 Corinthians 15:52. The Scripture passages indicated here are those that many dispensationalists assert describe the first or ‘rapture’ phase of the two-phase Second Coming. There are some who misapply John 14:1-3 in the same manner as I have discussed in a previous post!

    There is a common argument given for the pretribulation rapture of the Church that is worth discussing at this time. The argument is made that because the words church or churches do not appear after the completion of the third chapter of the Revelation, the Church cannot be present during the events described in the succeeding chapters. The word churches is used eleven times in Chapters 1-3, the word church is used seven times in these same chapters. The word church or churches does not appear again until Chapter 22, Verse 16. However, the term saints is used in Revelation 5:8; 8:3, 4; 11:18; 13:7, 10; 14:12; 15:3; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 19:8; and 20:9. The term redeemed is used in Revelation 5:9 and 14:3, 4. Both of these terms are characteristic of the Church, the Body and Bride of Jesus Christ when found elsewhere in the New Testament [Gregg, Revelation, Four Views, page 87]. The appearance of the churches again in Chapter 22, Verse 16 and the succeeding verse is interesting and informative.

    Revelation 22:16,17, KJV
    16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.
    17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.


    Notice two things,

    1. Jesus sent His angel to testify of these things in the churches, and
    2. The Spirit and the Bride, the Church, give the invitation to come and take of the water of life freely.


    These are strange statements to make if the Church is inconsequential during much of the period covered in Revelation; is gone during the tribulation period, and Jesus Christ rules with a ‘rod of iron’ during the millennium.

    Now we examine the appearance of the words Israel or Jew in the Book of Revelation. The word Israel appears three times in the Book of Revelation, Chapters 2, 7, and 21; the word Jews appears only twice, Chapters 2 and 3, and there the reference is to false Jews. So we see that a reference to Israel appears only once during that part of the Book that is presumed to represent ‘the seven year tribulation’ and ‘Jacob’s time of trouble’. The first time the word Israel is used [2:14] the reference is to the false prophet Balaam and his role in the seduction of Israel en route to the promise land. In Chapter 7 the name Israel is used in the discussion of the servants of God who are sealed. The next occasion [21:12] the name is used in the description of the New Jerusalem, the Church, the Bride of Jesus Christ. Again, Israel is referred to only one time, and no reference is made to the Jews, during that period in which it is claimed that the Church is absent. Strange indeed is the absence of the words Jew or Israel in the 16 chapters of Revelation written specifically, according to dispensational theology, for them while in the remainder of the New Testament the words Jew or Jews occur 188 times and the words Israel or Israelite occur 73 times.

    It is interesting to note that there are other books in the New Testament where the words church or churches are not used. The words do not appear in the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John. If one believes that the Church was not established until Pentecost, that is not necessarily unusual. It is interesting, however, that the book that many dispensationalists claim is the Gospel of the Kingdom [written by a Jewish believer who collected taxes for Rome] is the Gospel in which the Church is first proclaimed. The words church or churches are not mentioned in 1st & 2nd Peter, 1st & 2nd John, and Jude. Can we then argue the absence of the Church? The words are also absent from the first 15 chapters of Romans and occur only twice in Hebrews.

    To show that the absence or presence of a word is not decisive consider the Book of Esther in the Old Testament. The editor of the Thompson Chain Reference Bible notes:The name of God does not appear in the book, while a heathen king is referred to over 150 times. There is no allusion to prayer or spiritual service of any kind with the possible exception of fasting. Does this absence of reference to God mean that He was absent or that the book of Esther should not be in the Canon? Obviously not. I believe the book of Esther was written to show God’s watch care over His Covenant people through whom He would bring the Saviour into the world.

    In conclusion, there are books in the New Testament in which the words church or churches are not mentioned. Therefore, the absence of the word church in Chapters 4-19 of the book of Revelation is scant justification to claim that the Church is absent during the period covered by these chapters. However, I believe the best argument against a pretribulation “Rapture” is contained in the proper interpretation of John 5:28,29.

    Alan Johnson writing in the Expositors Bible Commentary, Volume 12, page 461 explains the absence of the word ‘church’ as follows: “the word church or churches always stands in Revelation for the historic seven churches in Asia and not for the universal body of Christ. Since 4:2-22:15 concerns the believing community as a whole, it would be inappropriate at least for John’s usage to find the narrower term ‘church’ in this section.

    Walvoord, page 279 of Major Bible Prophecies, writes: In the entirety of Revelation 4-18, no mention of the church on earth is found. Instead believers are referred to as believing Gentiles or believing Jews but never as the church. The total absence of any reference to the church is difficult to explain unless the pretribulationists are correct that the church is in heaven and not on earth during this period. However, as noted previously the word Jew is not mentioned in Chapters 4-19. The word Israel is mentioned only one time [Revelation 7:4]. The word Gentile is mentioned only one time [Revelation 11:2]. The word “redeemed” occurs only three times, one [Revelation 5:9] referring to the redeemed in Heaven, the remaining two in reference to the 144,000 on Mt Zion [Revelation 14:3, 4]. The word Saints occurs 13 times. Therefore, Walvoord’s statement that believers are referred to as believing Gentiles or believing Jews is not correct. In fact the words believer, believing, believe, or belief do not occur in the Book of Revelation.
     
  4. thisnumbersdisconnected

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    OR, I mean no offense, but that post contains so much misinterpretation, I would have to write two posts to cover them all, and I'm not going to do that. I did not deny Scripture in your post, I do dispute how you have explained it. And this, at the end, is the most telling:
    The Great White Throne judgment is for the condemned. Believers, from Adam to the last person born in the millennial reign, will not stand before that throne.

    There are three judgments detailed in Scripture. The first is the Bema Seat of Christ, where the believers from the church age will be given varying degrees of reward for their deeds, as detailed in 2 Corinthians 3:10-15. The second is the separation of the sheep and goats to determine who will enter the millennial kingdom, prophesied by Christ Himself in Matthew 25:31-46. And then lastly, the Great White Throne judgment, foretold in Revelation 20:11-15, in which unbelievers are judged according to their works and sentenced to everlasting punishment in the lake of fire.

    You cannot logically combine these into one judgment. They are detailed separately in God's word for a reason -- they are separate.
     
  5. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,285
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Also forgot to mention this James. There is this one couple in the class whom are strong KJVO, anti Calvinist, and the like. From class discussions in the past they know where I stand on these issues. I wonder if I should leave my ESV behind during the study or if I should bring my KJV as this is a KJVP church. I say the ESV is the superior translation and my Crossway bible is the best SB in print.


     
  6. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    I figure you are as entitled to misinterpretation as I am. The difference is that dispensationalism is based on a false premise: Namely that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic Kingdom, He was rejected by the Jews, and He established the "parenthesis" Church instead. Jesus Christ said: John 17:4. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

    Is Jesus Christ to be believed or not. If as dispensationalists claim that He came to establish the Messianic Kingdom then He did not finish what He came to do. Contrary to dispensational doctrine Jesus Christ came {1} to establish the Church in its New Testament form and {2}to die to reconcile the elect to God. This He did.

    New Testament eschatology is based in large part on a misinterpretation of Daniels 70 weeks!
     
  7. JamesL

    JamesL Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,715
    Likes Received:
    141
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have a hunch that if you were to leave your ESV at home, and use only a KJV, you might be received better. If they are bordering on King James perfection, and you show up with something else, you might lose them as soon as you walk through the door.

    I have a preference for the NASB - but when it comes to discussing scripture, you can do a very adequate job from any translation. If someone prefers ESV, I say ok let's use ESV.

    I'm even willing to crack open a New World Translation when I chat with a Jehovah's Witness, even though it's chock full of translation bias. Just being willing to play by their rules can go a long way. You can sort of eat the meat and spit out the bones.

    Your preference for the ESV might be well founded, and you might even adequately demonstrate its superiority as you see it according to your point of view.

    But I learned something on a construction site about 25 years ago, when I was just a punk kid. I saw the foreman making a measuring error, and tried to point it out to him. He wasn't interested in hearing me out, so I started arguing my point even louder. Little did I know, the customer was watching and listening, and then began to question the competence of the foreman because he apparently didn't know as much as his helper.

    My foreman explained to me that there is a time and place for everything. And sometimes, you can be wrong by being right.

    If you bring your ESV, and your class disconnects as soon as they hear a "strange" bible verse, the you lost them over a really meaningless issue.

    Wrong to lose them by trying to be right about the translation.
     
  8. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,383
    Likes Received:
    23
    God forbid we allow any diversity of thought in a Sunday School class. No wonder the class is in the state it is in. Iron sharpens iron must not apply in your church, which I gathered when you are afraid to take an ESV to church. I guess if your church is right in every doctrine then there is no need for diversity of opinions.
     
  9. asterisktom

    asterisktom Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,300
    Likes Received:
    282
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well said.
     
  10. prophet

    prophet Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,037
    Likes Received:
    2
    Second that.
     
  11. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    Thanks Tom!~ Long time no see!
     
  12. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,285
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You know James some employers fire people for knowing more than them, or for doing too good of a job, as it makes them look bad. I had a temp job last summer and I was always finishing all the work on time and before everyone else. Most just sat around chatting while I was working. I believe I made them look bad until I got let go and I was lied about to the temp agency whom just do whatever the employer says and do no think for themselves so they will believe a lie. I sent a letter to the company, but I may not have been loud enough, as some people require a loud voice before they get the picture.

    I remember dealing with the super rude safety coordinator (whom even others said was rude) and how he would make assumptions on things. Once he did so with my forklift driving, and I was tempted to tell him that if I drove a lift like he wanted at my last job I would not have lasted which was a true statement, and I should have suggested he go and apply for a job there and drive that way and see how long he lasted. Each company has differing preferences but he was rude to question my competence based on how I was required to drive at my last job.

    Regardless you may be correct. In class discussion I use my version, but when teaching that may be another matter. The church borderlines KJV Onlyism and I don't want to be an offense and so certain subjects are best left at home or to myself that may cause division. These subjects can be debated all day on this board, but probably not at church.
     
    #32 evangelist6589, Apr 12, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 12, 2014
  13. evangelist6589

    evangelist6589 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Messages:
    10,285
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am fortunate this church is not as bad, but when I was at BJU some of those legalistic churches hated diversity of views and some even thought one was divisive whom had a differing view. Seriously a second that as I had some interesting experiences at BJU in some of their very controlling churches whom want everyone to think as they do and those whom think different are labeled...

    In class discussions I use my ESV and sometimes my NIV. I use Calvinist terminology and when I ask for prayer for evangelism talk of the doctrine of election often and the doctrine of Total Depravity. I talk about Paul Washer, and also the way of the Master. But I wonder should I continue this tradition when I am teaching? I know from my experience at BJU doing such a thing is a great way to get kicked out of teaching a class in some of their very legalistic churches. Seriously is this wise or is it causing division? If I was asked to read scripture before the sermon and I read from the ESV how would people react? Some of them think the NIV is heretical, but it won't be long before they attack the ESV. I remember a very very dogmatic IFB pastor at a BJU church whom hated the NIV. He learned of the ESV and it did not take him long to go off on that one as well.
     
    #33 evangelist6589, Apr 12, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 12, 2014
  14. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    Doesn't it all depend on what that diversity of thought is and where it leads? All error and heresy probably started as diversity of thought.

    As one who taught SS for many many years I always tried to instigate discussion. Makes for an interesting period and is also a good teaching school. That being said I will give you an example of "diversity of thought" I encountered in an older men's class some years back. A certain man whom I had come to believe was of the "name it and claim it" crowd said: "Jesus Christ had to go to hell to be purged of sin!" Other than being a very ardent defender of dispensationalism that was the first time he had said anything really foolish. But that was a shocker and I asked for Scripture reference. He, of course, had none.

    Some months later he made the same statement. However, in the meantime I had learned the probable source of that "trash talk" -the Word of Faith heresy- the Kenneth and Gloria Copeland crowd. There have been a few of these on this BB in the past. I politely informed him of the previous occasion and just as politely said that unless he could support the statement by Scripture not to say it again. He left the class some weeks later.
     
  15. asterisktom

    asterisktom Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,300
    Likes Received:
    282
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hi, OR. Sometimes I just get tired of the needless friction that posting often gets here. Currently I have enough drama here in China. But I do read a lot from this board, my favorite Christian board by far.

    Interesting that you said "long time no see" (好久不见). Just 15 minutes ago I was writing that very phrase in my Chinese study notebook. It is a Chinese phrase that has been carried over literally into English.
     
  16. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    28,574
    Likes Received:
    904
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So where did he say he got this from? "Jesus Christ had to go to hell to be purged of sin!" Are you suggesting bad teaching w/o biblical backup?
     
  17. thisnumbersdisconnected

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, no, not really ...
    But it was a nice story.
     
  18. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    He was not the teacher, I was. The first time he made the statement I asked for Scripture. The second time I asked for either Scripture or "Don't make that statement again." He left the class some weeks later.

    He never said where he got that idea. I came to believe he got it from the Word of Faith people. At that time I had read nothing about them but have since then. I posted 16 heretical beliefs of this group on: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=92939&page=3
     
  19. asterisktom

    asterisktom Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,300
    Likes Received:
    282
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't know you. Did I say something earlier to you that merited this rude little snip?

    I am aware of the different views of where the phrase comes from. My opinion of where it originated from, right or wrong, is one I studied out a bit.

    Good grief.
     
  20. thisnumbersdisconnected

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow, get your panties in a bunch much? That was just another opinion, too. Don't take it so personally. It wasn't. Just thought the Oxford Dictionary might carry a bit more weight, including with you. Perhaps not.
     
Loading...