Twister: Caught In the Storm

[Eleanor]

I believe so, but the OP says that to just pick a couple of verses is wrong.

Picking a couple of verses out of context, yes that is wrong.

I think it lines up with how God treated Israel during the 10 plagues in that he separated Goshen from Egypt about half way through. (Hmmm...) So more scriptural support as strong as the interpretation of prophecy used by some in eschatology. What I would like to know is how the idea that God will separate the church, His children, from His damning wrath is somehow unscriptural, that is to say as is recorded in the OP, not keeping with the full counsel of God.

 

[Arial]

Since you want the OP, then here is the question. How is it not keeping with the full counsel of God? How do you know that it is isolated from the full counsel of God? Do you have any scriptural support for that? No links, your own support since that is what you ask for. "If any wish to dispute that and give their sound biblical support..." Please, give some sound biblical support. Make sure it doesn't contradict anything else. (You asked for OP.) All I intended to do was correct inaccuracies in the OP.

Does what you have turned on its head to ask these things of me, in any way resemble what I offered? Does it take advantage of the offer to do what was said? And I am going to make an amendment to the offer so as to keep your from opining incessantly of Dan 7. The reason I am doing that is because it presumes a correct interpretation of Daniel and other OT prophecy when there are other options of interpretation, that I consider more consistent with the correct hermeneutical interpretation of prophecy period. Rather than through the break of a dispensation as the interpretive too.. So the amendment is: To use NT scriptures only to support a pre-trib rapture. I believe this is a reasonable request since it is the NT that interprets the OT and it is the NT that gives us in clear language rather than apocalyptic prophetic language, the picture of Christ's second coming ant the time period between the first and second coming.

And as I said, there is no sound biblical support for it. If any wish to dispute that and give their sound biblical support you have the floor. But please don't use a quoted scripture here and another there, removing them from the surrounding context and the full counsel of God. And by the full counsel of God I mean, make sure they don't contradict anything else.

Is there a reason why you are pushing us not to trust John MacArthur or others?

I'm not. I am just stating facts.

Do you have a place to stand on that that is rock solid?

Yes,

You say a lot here that is completely subjective, right down to using that movie.

It wasn't a movie. It was a documentary as I said in the OP. It was the very words out of the very mouth of the person who thought the tornado was the rapture. How is that subjective? Posters need to read what they are responding to carefully.

I will ask you to prove that it is biblical to believe that God will pour out the winepresses of his overwhelming wrath on His elect, adopted children.

Such a thing cannot be proven and why would you ask me to do that when I do not believe his wrath will be poured out on his children and never said that it would? You see his wrath on his children if they go through the tribulation and I know that is not his wrath against his children. I also do not believe as you do, that the tribulation period spoken of is confined to seven or three and a half years but that we are in the times of tribulation now, have been since the resurrection and will be until he returns. Tell me, were the martyrs having God's wrath poured out on them?

 

[Arial]

Yes, but the link doesn't verify what you say about Darby being first, or even being the roots of the teaching. History does not bear that out. Now dispensationalism may have overtaken the MODERN church, but the rapture has been in the church for a very long time. And out in the open, though so long ago that it is lost to history, except that some historian wrote it down during the middle ages. I am writing to correct the inaccuracies that make this a hit piece on Darby. There are a lot of lies out there. Again, this does not make him right or wrong.

This is the third time I am telling you that I never said Dartby was the first, so the misrepresentation of what I say becomes deliberate and violates Rule 2.2. Again: This is what I said.

This has been going on since Darby first brought it into the open in the 1830's. All generations since have been inundated with it. Generation after generation who knows nothing else. And we can see from what happened to "Dale" in the tornado, how deeply it sinks into the psyche of a person, so that removing it is next to impossible. It is as though their very Christianity depends centrally on that one belief. It is a hill they are willing to die on.

I am writing to correct the inaccuracies that make this a hit piece on Darby.

Why would you see it as a hit piece on Darby when if it is a hit piece at all it is aimed at the potential damage to young and easily influenced and imaginative Christians, of a teaching that is taught as fact, promoted in books and movies with the imagination fed in living, moving, color before their eyes and down into their souls?

 

[Arial]

Proselytize, I don't think that word means what you think it means. I believe the word you are looking for is educate. What am I pointing out? Darby isn't the root of the rapture, as it shows up throughout church history, even if not mainstream. Not sure how that is proselytizing?

Educate would be your own definition of what you are doing, with no possibility of your being wrong and no willingness to find out if you are. That is more propaganda than education. And since I never said Darby was the root of the rapture, and Darby is not the subject of the OP, but his own version of it is how his teaching came to be almost the exclusive teaching in Christ's church, tweaked here and there as time passed, why on earth are you going back to the ECFs?

Proselytize: To try and persuade someone to their beliefs.

 

[Arial]

I believe so, but the OP says that to just pick a couple of verses is wrong.

Is that what I said?

But please don't use a quoted scripture here and another there, removing them from the surrounding context and the full counsel of God. And by the full counsel of God I mean, make sure they don't contradict anything else.

You are constantly violating Rule 2.2 in order to strengthen your position. Twice you have had it pointed out to you. Next time it will be subject to warnings and/or deletions of the text.

 

[TMSO]

Does what you have turned on its head to ask these things of me, in any way resemble what I offered? Does it take advantage of the offer to do what was said? And I am going to make an amendment to the offer so as to keep your from opining incessantly of Dan 7. The reason I am doing that is because it presumes a correct interpretation of Daniel and other OT prophecy when there are other options of interpretation, that I consider more consistent with the correct hermeneutical interpretation of prophecy period. Rather than through the break of a dispensation as the interpretive too.. So the amendment is: To use NT scriptures only to support a pre-trib rapture. I believe this is a reasonable request since it is the NT that interprets the OT and it is the NT that gives us in clear language rather than apocalyptic prophetic language, the picture of Christ's second coming ant the time period between the first and second coming.

I believe the terminology is "shifting the goal posts". When you realize yo argument is on shaky ground, you shift the goal posts. You say it has to be in keeping with the whole counsel of God, and then you cut that in half? What is there to be afraid of? This is eschatology. We just don't know. All we have is what scripture says in prophecy and in Jesus' own words, and our own observations and historical records. That includes the Old Testament.

I'm not. I am just stating facts.

So I guess the fact is we can't trust John MacArthur. Got it. There are A LOT of people who found the gospel through John MacArthur's ministry who would take offense. And all of this over... eschatology of all things. When you say something (in this case eschatology) is being pushed by someone we should be able to trust, you are basically saying they can't be trusted. And naming names. I'll give you a name to look up, and you may see why I would personally vouch (well past at least if not present) cannot be trusted. Brannon Howse. Why? His eschatology isn't the only problem.

Yes,

So please present the scripture that shows that God will pour out His wrath on the church. If the foundation is solid, you should be able to present it.

It wasn't a movie. It was a documentary as I said in the OP. It was the very words out of the very mouth of the person who thought the tornado was the rapture. How is that subjective? Posters need to read what they are responding to carefully.

Such a thing cannot be proven and why would you ask me to do that when I do not believe his wrath will be poured out on his children and never said that it would?

So how do you believe God will separate His church from the world that will face His wrath? Or do you categorically deny God the right to His wrath? Scripture is clear that God's wrath towards the world (the sinful world/Satan's domain) has been building up until the winepresses are overflowing. He has held back for the sake of the elect. If the church is here when God pours out His wrath, then, it is understood the wrath is being poured out on His children as well. And here is the definition of wrath: 1. strong vengeful anger or indignation 2. retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement. Does that sound anything like God's attitude towards the church, His children? As a positive assertion, either you can prove it, or you have no argument. That makes this whole thing a moot point, right?

You see his wrath on his children if they go through the tribulation and I know that is not his wrath against his children.

How? You believe His children are here for the tribulation, therefore the wrath is on His children as well as the rest of the world. Refer back to the definition of wrath. You understand Jesus came to Earth to face God's wrath for us, right? Would you take that from Him? There is a difference between tribulation/persecution and wrath. If you face God's wrath, your game is over.

I also do not believe as you do, that the tribulation period spoken of is confined to seven or three and a half years but that we are in the times of tribulation now, have been since the resurrection and will be until he returns.

I don't know how to avoid giving a long answer, and I know you'll just shut it down to avoid response. Knowing that I will try anyway. (I don't count the quoted scripture, because who could ever look down on quoted scripture, or scripture in general?) 1. I believe the times we are in now were defined by both Jesus in Luke and Paul in Romans 9-11, most specifically in Romans 11.

Luke 21
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

It is clear that this is speaking to AD70, since it says that Jerusalem's desolation is near, however, look at the end of the section. It does not state that Jesus is returning any time soon after that. It speaks of the diaspora, and that Jerusalem will be trampled under foot, not until Jesus returns, but until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. So if Jerusalem is still being trampled under foot and not controlled by Israel, or part of Israel as its capital because of the Gentiles (in this case the UN and everyone else who are, for all intents and purposes as Gentile as we are) does that not mean that the times of the Gentiles has not yet been fulfilled? If you look at Mathew, it doesn't say, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, recognize that her desolation is near. It says that when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel in the holy place FLEE. It doesn't say diaspora, it says if the days aren't cut short, there would be no life left on Earth. A completely different situation. The Great Tribulation is what Jesus calls it in Matthew 24. Not the time of Jerusalem's desolation. A short period of time. It lasts from when the abomination of desolation is seen in the Holy Place, until the days are cut short and Jesus returns. Luke speaks nothing of days being cut short.

What does Paul say in Roman 11?
"25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
27“This is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”"

So we have not been in the tribulation since Jesus left, but in the "times of the Gentiles". Romans 11 also mentions what this means, when it says that Israel became disobedient and the Gentiles became obedient. The times of the Gentiles is when Jesus is gathering in the sheep of another flock that is not His. That is, Gentiles are not the chosen people of God, so they don't, in that way, belong to Him. However, Israel does bear God's name, even if it is in name only. God has claimed them by covenant, and thus the lost sheep of the house of Israel are His by name. (by name, meaning by His name.)

In closing this, prophecy from God has been VERY direct, right down to the day if not the minute. The prophecies made to the baker and taste tester in Egypt were to the day. The prophecy of the famine in Egypt was to the year. When God speaks of time in prophecy, He is NOT being figurative. The Messiah being cut off after 69 weeks is just that. AFTER 69 weeks, not at the start of the 70th or during the 70th. And as part of the after 69 weeks is a 35+ year period. It can't be the 70th week or God spoke presumptuously about 70 weeks. The prophecy is 70 weeks of God dealing with the people of Israel and Jerusalem. So, all the times that God is dealing with a focus on Israel. What we see in Luke and Romans is that after the 69th week, the focus moved from Israel to the Gentiles. In essence, there can be a gap because the 70 weeks pertains solely to Israel by decree/command of God. So if the focus moves from Israel, then the clock is paused. As Peter tells us, God does not see time as we do. Neither do football fans. That hour super bowl games seems close to 3 hours.

Tell me, were the martyrs having God's wrath poured out on them?

The martyrs were facing persecution, not wrath.
Wrath: " 1. strong vengeful anger or indignation 2. retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement" Does any of that appear to be God's stance towards the church, or His children?

 

[Arial]

I believe the terminology is "shifting the goal posts". When you realize yo argument is on shaky ground, you shift the goal posts. You say it has to be in keeping with the whole counsel of God, and then you cut that in half? What is there to be afraid of? This is eschatology. We just don't know. All we have is what scripture says in prophecy and in Jesus' own words, and our own observations and historical records. That includes the Old Testament.

You have forced Rule 4.4 into effect.


4.4. Identify and address only one logical fallacy at a time. To ensure fair and orderly debate, members may identify only one alleged logical fallacy at a time in an opponent's argument. Additional accusations may not be introduced until the initial claim has been acknowledged and refuted or otherwise resolved. This prevents discussions from being overwhelmed by a cascade of accusations which, if addressed, would derail meaningful engagement. Fallacy accusations should be made in good faith, with careful attention to context and a willingness to be corrected if mistaken.

And violated rule 2.2

2.2. Address the issue, topic, or argument, not the person. Such things as inflammatory or marginalizing language, divisiveness, misquoting, misrepresenting, trolling, and personal attacks (including belittling, insulting, falsely accusing, or making assumptions about the character, motives, or faith of other members) are strictly prohibited.

So I will address the accusation that I "shifted the goal posts", and defend my position. You then must acknowledge that I did not or prove that what you say I did was shifting the goal posts. We will need to go back to where you first shifted the goal posts that required me, for the sake of keeping the commits contained within the boundaries that I, as the OP set, rather than becoming an all out, never ending discussion where many, passages in OT prophecy are used to support the eschatological view contained within Dispensationalism. (What you call yourself is irrelevant.) Doing this would require counters to interpretations for weeks on end over something that is made clear in the NT concerning the return of Christ, without any reference to OT prophetic interpretation other than what the NT interpretation gives. That explains why I amended the original statement to offer the opportunity for whoever wanted to, to show how the NT supports their position. That is not shifting the goal posts. It is keeping the thread in check. It is not cutting the whole counsel of God in half. The whole counsel of God means that nothing said and no interpretation contradicts anything else that is said within the pages of our Bible.

Here is how you shifted the goal post right at the beginning.

And as I said, there is no sound biblical support for it. If any wish to dispute that and give their sound biblical support you have the floor. But please don't use a quoted scripture here and another there, removing them from the surrounding context and the full counsel of God. And by the full counsel of God I mean, make sure they don't contradict anything else.

Since you want the OP, then here is the question. How is it not keeping with the full counsel of God? How do you know that it is isolated from the full counsel of God? Do you have any scriptural support for that? No links, your own support since that is what you ask for. "If any wish to dispute that and give their sound biblical support..." Please, give some sound biblical support. Make sure it doesn't contradict anything else. (You asked for OP.) All I intended to do was correct inaccuracies in the OP.

My support for what I have said and believe would need to come from countering if need be, the scriptures and exposition one gives to show their view is biblical. Picking apart the Dispensational eschatological view of a pre-trib rapture was not the point of the OP. I was giving an example of the repercussions of it. Therefore, if anyone wishes to dispute my statement that it is unbiblical, I am prepared to do so.

 

[Arial]

So I guess the fact is we can't trust John MacArthur.

You can trust him if you want. I did not say he could not be trusted. I myself do not completely mistrust him. I learned a lot about Reformed theology from him. I am saying I find his eschatological viewpoint, not only in his end times interpretations, but the eschatological aspect the entire Bible (which is eschatological from the beginning pronouncement of the serpent in Gen 3:15 on as it is progressive throughout the history in the Word) to be off. It is his beginning "off" that ends with the ending "off." (Technically the Bible is eschatalogical within the Godhead before "In the beginning---" ever occurred.) There was a future purpose in creation before creation. Having some things wrong is not the same as having everything wrong. But because of his prominent position, thousands of people have followed and become entrenched in his eschatological views without questioning or checking.

There are A LOT of people who found the gospel through John MacArthur's ministry who would take offense. And all of this over... eschatology of all things.

If they want to take offense, even though there is no reason to, that is out of my hands. It is certainly not a reason to avoid pointing out where it does not align with scripture and makes contradictions and asserts things many other Christians find untenable. Such as a return to the old way of worship of animal sacrifices. See above. Did I or anyone else ever say that MacArthur cannot be trusted in anything he says? Did I even mention not trusting him with anything in the OP? That is all in your own head.

When you say something (in this case eschatology) is being pushed by someone we should be able to trust, you are basically saying they can't be trusted.

No I am not. I am saying he is a person who is trusted (and trust worthy) in many things, and because of that his eschatological views are also trusted without question. Don't put words in my mouth. People are lazy. They don't do the work necessary to find out if it holds water or not.

 

[Arial]

So please present the scripture that shows that God will pour out His wrath on the church. If the foundation is solid, you should be able to present it.

The foundation I am standing on eschatologically is not the same one you are standing on. I have already gone through this with you and it is though I did not say it.

1.I do not consider that Revelation is giving a chronological order of different series of wrath, but that it is different perspectives stating the same things, sometimes with additions or further explanation. It is through symbolic language giving a perspective from heaven (the unseen spiritual realm) what has taken place and is taking place that is played out on earth in our history, and bringing it to its victorious conclusion with the return of Christ.

2. Therefore, I do not think that the tribulation John speaks of (and remember this is a letter written to specific churches, and must be relevant to them also) is confined to a specific seven year period. It is self evident that all those things in the judgments, and they all conclude with his return if I am not mistaken, with the exception of Christ's return and the fullness of our salvation, were happening then, some had happened in Christ's death, crucifixion and resurrection, and the events of the judgments have been happening ever since and will continue until his return. If they are interpreted according to the symbolism and representatives used, instead of literalisticlly. And that is not saying that the symbols do not represent literal events.

3. Therefore, I also do not believe that the thousand years is a future literal thousand years, but is a long, the determination of the length not given, period of time between the two advents.

4. Therefore, in my view there is no seven and a half or three and a half year period of time where God is pouring out his wrath on believers.

5. Therefore, asking me to present scripture that shows that God will pour out his wrath on the church is like asking someone if they stopped beating their wife, as to the type of request it requests. It is asking me to prove with scripture something I do not believe.

 

[Arial]

How? You believe His children are here for the tribulation, therefore the wrath is on His children as well as the rest of the world. Refer back to the definition of wrath. You understand Jesus came to Earth to face God's wrath for us, right? Would you take that from Him? There is a difference between tribulation/persecution and wrath. If you face God's wrath, your game is over.

See post # 49

So how do you believe God will separate His church from the world that will face His wrath? Or do you categorically deny God the right to His wrath?

How did he separate his people in Egypt when he poured out his wrath on Egypt and not on them? And in what universe does me believing he will not pour out his wrath on his children because I do not agree with your eschatological position, equate to me categorically denying his right to his wrath?

He has held back for the sake of the elect.

I actually agree with that statement, though I suspect not in the same way you do. For the sake of the elect imv means until the last of the elect has been gathered into the flock.

If the church is here when God pours out His wrath, then, it is understood the wrath is being poured out on His children as well. And here is the definition of wrath: 1. strong vengeful anger or indignation 2. retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement. Does that sound anything like God's attitude towards the church, His children? As a positive assertion, either you can prove it, or you have no argument. That makes this whole thing a moot point, right?

Is that what it meant in Egypt? But your statement presumes that I have the same eschatological view that you have, and I do not. That aside, how many times do we see his wrath in judgment poured out on his people Israel in the OT and again in A.D. 70?

As a positive assertion, either you can prove it, or you have no argument. That makes this whole thing a moot point, right?

I gave my argument. I cannot give my argument in agreement with your presupposition that you are right, because it is not my position. Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

[Arial]

I don't know how to avoid giving a long answer, and I know you'll just shut it down to avoid response.

To say first that I will shut you down and then to also say the reason I will is in order to avoid a response, speaks to your being privy to the operation of my mind. Which you don't have. So it becomes a baseless and turns out, false accusation.

Luke 21
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

It is clear that this is speaking to AD70, since it says that Jerusalem's desolation is near, however, look at the end of the section. It does not state that Jesus is returning any time soon after that. It speaks of the diaspora, and that Jerusalem will be trampled under foot, not until Jesus returns, but until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

I don't disagree with that. I may disagree with your interpretation of "the times of the Gentiles". Or that there are other possible options to its interpretation. We shall see.

So if Jerusalem is still being trampled under foot and not controlled by Israel, or part of Israel as its capital because of the Gentiles (in this case the UN and everyone else who are, for all intents and purposes as Gentile as we are) does that not mean that the times of the Gentiles has not yet been fulfilled?

Where does Paul mention that the condition of the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled is related to Israel being controlled by Israel or part of Israel as its capital, because of the Gentiles? Is Paul as he interprets this hardening of Israel and its purpose in chapter 11, speaking of a nation and a government, or is he speaking of a people of God? Those gathered to Christ as his people through faith, Jew and Gentile alike. A remnant from both people groups. Are the "times of the Gentiles" about trampling Jerusalem underfoot, or is it about in-gathering of the people of God?Does Paul relate this in any way to a thousand year period in which Christ has returned and sits in a rebuilt temple? Does he mention a temple being rebuilt? Does he mention that there will be a return (ever, anywhere in his writings or those of any of the other apostles) to the old order of animal sacrifices and temple worship?

Or do his writings and those of the author of Hebrews tell us that such a a thing tramples underfoot the blood of Jesus? Or do they tell us that his people are the temple as the body of Christ, and they are the priests, and that when all things are restored there will be no temple because he will dwell with us. What happened to the pre-trib, premil temple Jesus was standing in and ruling from?

If you look at Mathew, it doesn't say, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, recognize that her desolation is near. It says that when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel in the holy place FLEE. It doesn't say diaspora, it says if the days aren't cut short, there would be no life left on Earth. A completely different situation. The Great Tribulation is what Jesus calls it in Matthew 24. Not the time of Jerusalem's desolation. A short period of time. It lasts from when the abomination of desolation is seen in the Holy Place, until the days are cut short and Jesus returns. Luke speaks nothing of days being cut short.

You do realize, don't you, that that this happened by Antiochus in 168 b.c. and in 70 a.d. by the Romans. But why are you using Daniel to interpret this Scripture? The position of traditional Christian heremeneutics understands that it is the NT that interprets the mysteries (not yet revealed) of the OT. And Jesus does not call it a Great Tribulation but says there will be great tribulation.

To be continued.

 

[Hazelelponi]

So please present the scripture that shows that God will pour out His wrath on the church. If the foundation is solid, you should be able to present it.

I'll jump in I hope you don't mind. (I'm a different person than the one you're speaking with, I'm not trying confuse you).

To answer the question - there is none, but your idea of wrath and what I believe it is are likely two different things. I understand Scripture to explicitly state that God's wrath is God giving people over to their own sins; the desires of their hearts and the lusts of the flesh and the like.

That's actually judgement and God's wrath. That's God closing the door to mercy and handing people over to their own depravity. We see it all around us both now and through history.

Do you know how bad man can become without God's hand of constraint upon the man?

Greed, envy, murder, strife, homosexuality etc. That's the wrath of God revealed from heaven. It's not natural disasters which are part of weather patterns, it's letting mankind be just as evil as he wants to be.

The Bible states this quite clearly in Romans 1:18-32 . Elsewhere Peter stated:

"For it is time for judgment to begin with God’s household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God" 1 Peter 4:17

Gods wrath is against unbelievers who have a final straw moment with God. Whether that final straw occurs personally or nationally seems depending on how bad the nation was. Chinese people got Mao, Germany got Hitler, etc. History is replete with examples of nations or people being turned over to sin.

According to the Bible the wrath of God being revealed from heaven is something we, the Church, will have to deal with until the return of Christ because we will be living in a fallen world, just through various stages of sin, depending on how much any given population acknowledges God.

As their judgement runs up against us we will find our own trials and tribulations.

That's how I see judgement anyway, and no, the church, being herself righteous in Christ, never sees judgement. But it doesn't mean her life will be easy, on the contrary, she will be hated for His Name sake.

 

[Arial]

What does Paul say in Roman 11?
"25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
27“This is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”"

I do not interpret this as saying that God has divided his dealing with two separate groups in separate ways. Notice I did not say two different means of salvation, but two separate groups in two different ways. The church by removing them from the earth while he restores the nation of Israel to its land boundaries and takes them backwards into the old order and the new covenant. And then brings the two together. Neither do I believe that all Israel will be saved means every ethnic Jew, no matter where they live or what they believe, will be saved, since he has already said only a remnant will be saved. If all Israel means all without exception it can only mean all the elect whether Jew or Gentile will be saved, referring to spiritual Israel not ethnic or national Israel. True Israel. The people of God. Through faith in the person and work of True and Faithful Israel, my Lord Jesus Christ.

The precedent can be found here: Eph 2: 11-22; Romans 9:6-7; Gal 3:7-9; 1 Peter 2:9-10 which echoes Ex 19:5-6: Romans 10:12

So we have not been in the tribulation since Jesus left, but in the "times of the Gentiles".

I don't know about you, but I have been in tribulation since I was born. The very fact that all mankind are sinners and God subjected the entire creation to futility (Romans 8) results in tribulation. When was the last time you read the book of Ecclesiastics? Why does it have to be one or the other? Look at what the church has gone through and is going through and will go through, and her people for the sake of Christ.

The times of the Gentiles is when Jesus is gathering in the sheep of another flock that is not His.

I agree, except he does not have another flock. He has one flock. When Jesus spoke of his sheep not of "this flock" he was speaking to Jews about Jews because he was sent to his own people. It was the apostles who first began gathering the flock in Israel and one apostle appointed specifically to begin gathering the Gentiles. He was not saying that they would remain two flocks until after he returned for a thousand years.

The times of the Gentiles is when Jesus is gathering in the sheep of another flock that is not His. That is, Gentiles are not the chosen people of God, so they don't, in that way, belong to Him

All I will bother to say to that is "You've got to be kidding me!!" I think that would probably be echoed by most if not all active on the forum, even some dispensationalists.

However, Israel does bear God's name, even if it is in name only. God has claimed them by covenant, and thus the lost sheep of the house of Israel are His by name. (by name, meaning by His name.)

That pretty much came to an end when he destroyed Jerusalem and wiped out any possibility of worshiping him in the old way ever again. They broke the covenant. But God continued to keep his word and he created a new Israel (the people of God) and a new covenant, just as he long ago said to Abraham he would, and before that cursed the serpent with that promise. And the new covenant belongs to the elect of God in all nations and times. Some of them are Jews in the US or Canada or Mexico or Europe and Asia or Israel etc. Not replacing Israel but a re-created Israel that has no land boundaries and no temples, and no animal sacrifices. We worship in spirit and in truth.

In closing this, prophecy from God has been VERY direct, right down to the day if not the minute. The prophecies made to the baker and taste tester in Egypt were to the day. The prophecy of the famine in Egypt was to the year. When God speaks of time in prophecy, He is NOT being figurative. The Messiah being cut off after 69 weeks is just that. AFTER 69 weeks, not at the start of the 70th or during the 70th. And as part of the after 69 weeks is a 35+ year period. It can't be the 70th week or God spoke presumptuously about 70 weeks. The prophecy is 70 weeks of God dealing with the people of Israel and Jerusalem. So, all the times that God is dealing with a focus on Israel. What we see in Luke and Romans is that after the 69th week, the focus moved from Israel to the Gentiles. In essence, there can be a gap because the 70 weeks pertains solely to Israel by decree/command of God. So if the focus moves from Israel, then the clock is paused. As Peter tells us, God does not see time as we do. Neither do football fans. That hour super bowl games seems close to 3 hours.

And there we have it. Daniel is the means by which one must interpret the NT. Why is it that you cannot just show the scriptures from the NT that you think support your view? You could be completely wrong in your interpretation of Daniel and the 70 weeks and misapplying it completely. I think you are wrong. But I have already told you I am not going there in this thread, and so you won't interpret my mind by your mind I announce my reasons according to my mind, I will tell you why. We have done that in the past. It was fruitless and it will be just as fruitless this time around. It is time consuming and tedious, and frankly, since it is fruitless, boring and repetitive for a forum.

The martyrs were facing persecution, not wrath.
Wrath: " 1. strong vengeful anger or indignation 2. retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement" Does any of that appear to be God's stance towards the church, or His children?

I know. So why do you say that if Christians are here during what you consider the times of Revelation, they are facing his wrath instead of persecution?

 

[TMSO]

This is the third time I am telling you that I never said Dartby was the first, so the misrepresentation of what I say becomes deliberate and violates Rule 2.2. Again: This is what I said.

Why would you see it as a hit piece on Darby when if it is a hit piece at all it is aimed at the potential damage to young and easily influenced and imaginative Christians, of a teaching that is taught as fact, promoted in books and movies with the imagination fed in living, moving, color before their eyes and down into their souls?

Because, as I have been saying, DARBY WASN'T FIRST. So you shouldn't be talking about Darby, right? You should be talking about the rapture IN GENERAL. Why, because as you keep saying that you are saying, DARBY WASN'T FIRST. He didn't make anyone write books. He didn't make anyone make movies. They didn't dig him up and ask his opinion.

One thing it may have done is keep some people from becoming despicably wicked over fear that they may get left behind. That could be God's intention for allowing this to happen at a time that apostasy is great. How can we say God didn't allow it for His purposes, and just go out a rail against it, and if He did allow it, ultimately against Him?

 

[TMSO]

Educate would be your own definition of what you are doing, with no possibility of your being wrong and no willingness to find out if you are.

The other downside is there is no possibility of me being right, for that is not the purpose of educating. Apparently you think that my response was to say I am right and not wrong, but it was NEITHER.

That is more propaganda than education. And since I never said Darby was the root of the rapture, and Darby is not the subject of the OP, but his own version of it is how his teaching came to be almost the exclusive teaching in Christ's church, tweaked here and there as time passed, why on earth are you going back to the ECFs?

The reason why I said you should actually read what you link, because you linking it is a tacit approval and acceptance of what it says. Unless you read it and say where you don't agree. You won't even do that. What you linked to says that the rapture finds its roots in Darby. The thing is that that means everything he wrote in the article is linked to that idea. A false premise leads to an unsound argument, which means it doesn't validate anything, unless that thing is in itself also irrational.

Proselytize: To try and persuade someone to their beliefs.

Even after posting the definition, it still doesn't mean what YOU think it means. I was educating, that is casting light on some inaccuracies in what you wrote. (Historical in this case). I presented evidence without saying it was right or wrong in order to correct the inaccuracies. You don't have a good sound argument if your premises are wrong. If you fix the premises, then you can bring your argument in line.

 

[TMSO]

See post # 49

Just understand my point. It is for your consideration and thought. This is an argument. The argument put forth is, here is point a, here is point b, why do you support point b. If you don't you explain why not. If you do, you present some form of support. That way James White doesn't say "Go away, and don't talk to me" like he did to Stephen Anderson. (It was hilarious. Childish, but hilarious.) I guess in this case, do you believe God will pour out His wrath on the whole world. Since His children, in your belief, would still be on this world, does that not mean that He is also pouring His wrath on His children. As such, then point b is, you either believe God will pour out His wrath on His children, or your belief denies Him the right to His wrath. (He'll do it anyway, just as planned, since He doesn't care about our petty beliefs.) Your counter should be (as I have read your response here) that you believe God will separate His children from it. (I get that from the first sentence in your quote below.) It is at that point, we discuss how that presents itself, and it is a respectful argument. Everyone learns something, and they themselves decide what to do with it. Now since that isn't the OP, that would be up to you if it would be edifying, or if it would add a different aspect to your OP.

How did he separate his people in Egypt when he poured out his wrath on Egypt and not on them? And in what universe does me believing he will not pour out his wrath on his children because I do not agree with your eschatological position, equate to me categorically denying his right to his wrath?

In response to your first question, a proper view of Egypt in this argument would be, non believers would be on the Earth [Egypt], and believers would be on the moon [Goshen], separated from God's wrath by being somewhere else. Since God wrath is for the WHOLE world, it would be wise not to be there. Goshen was outside of Egypt. Any Hebrews living in Egypt faced the plagues just as the Egyptians did. In some cases, God gave warning to avoid the plague. In others, they suffered through it just like the Egyptians. When it was dark in Egypt, it was dark for the Hebrews living in Egypt. Only in Goshen was there light. The plagues did not happen in Goshen after God made separation, only in Egypt. The last plague was different, however, the last plague was also special. Foreshadowing of Jesus Christ, who is for the whole world, not just the Jews or just the Gentiles. No one was left out of the last plague.

The point of the last question, if I recall, is that if God is not going to pour out His wrath on His children, but His children are still here, yet He is supposed to pour out His wrath on the WHOLE WORLD, and everyone on it, then the belief that He will not pour our His wrath on His children denies Him, in the belief, the right to His wrath. I mean, it is wrong, so God will do it anyway, but the belief would deny His wrath. (God doesn't care about our pet beliefs.) You were given two possibilities. God doesn't pour out His wrath on His children, or God does. If God doesn't pour out His wrath on His children, which was planned for the WHOLE WORLD, then God isn't pouring out His wrath at all, or, since God is pouring out His wrath on the whole world, then that includes His children, if they are still here. (Just as the plagues also affected those Hebrews who lived in Egypt for whatever reason. Servants for instance. I am not locking you to those, so give a third choice if you have one. (I did use the tactic of making it appear there are only two, so that's on me...)

I actually agree with that statement, though I suspect not in the same way you do. For the sake of the elect imv means until the last of the elect has been gathered into the flock.

Have you considered that the reason why it says "for the sake of the elect" has to do with that if the days of God's wrath weren't cut short, the elect would be in a world of hurt? So for their sake, He cut it short? And why does Jesus say that it is a good thing? He says that if it wasn't cut short, there would be no life left on Earth. (I mean, the beast and his armies would wipe out Israel, and then Jesus would wipe out the beast and his armies. No one left.) What we have in Revelation 19 is Jesus Himself intervening before events could be concluded. Before Israel was wiped out. So all we have is Jesus wiping out the beast and his armies. Those who are simply elect (chosen), are then saved and gathered in. That is what Revelation and Zechariah seems to show. So for the sake of the elect who are not yet saved, God cuts the Great Tribulation short.

Is that what it meant in Egypt? But your statement presumes that I have the same eschatological view that you have, and I do not. That aside, how many times do we see his wrath in judgment poured out on his people Israel in the OT and again in A.D. 70?

I believe you do have the same eschatological view, though your beliefs are different. Where you place things differ. The view is still the same. It isn't THAT different since Augustine was a premillennialist first. I read someone who basically said that premillennialism and amillennialism are the only eschatological beliefs that can find support in the Bible. Even post millennialism has only one or two verses out of the ENTIRE BIBLE. All the rest is neutral or against.

I gave my argument. I cannot give my argument in agreement with your presupposition that you are right, because it is not my position. Have you stopped beating your wife?

I am not looking for agreement, I am looking for pushback. No one is right... completely. That is what the sparring is for. Iron on iron. I came into it to point out inaccuracies only, since that completely undermines an argument. What is different in the kind of argument that we are having, is we should be correcting the issues to make the argument stronger, to get the most out of it. I have changed some of my views when someone else has been right. I have taken a weak non-existent argument from someone and tried to show them how to strengthen it. Why? That way if it is disproven, it is clear to the person how they are wrong, and they seek out the truth. And, more often then not, it is a tiny piece. For instance, Darby wasn't first, he isn't the only one, the rapture is not an recent belief in the church. That doesn't support dispensationalism, just as it doesn't undermine it either. It is just a small piece of a much larger puzzle. One where the picture can change as you keep putting pieces together. Why? We lost the box a long time ago... sorry.

 

[TMSO]

I do not interpret this as saying that God has divided his dealing with two separate groups in separate ways. Notice I did not say two different means of salvation, but two separate groups in two different ways.

I believe different and separate are synonymous. They went their separate ways, or, they went different ways. There are two groups because, on this Earth before the end, there are the covenant people of God, Israel, which some/many are God's chosen people in name only, and the Gentiles, who are not the covenant people of God. The Gentiles never become the covenant people of God, and Israel never ceases to be the covenant people IN NAME. Paul did say that all who are of Israel are not Israel. So while Israel is the covenant people of God in name, at the individual level, not each person is actually chosen by God, that is to say elect. Elect at the national, group level, not elect at the individual level. Unfortunately, nations aren't saved, individuals are.

The church by removing them from the earth while he restores the nation of Israel to its land boundaries and takes them backwards into the old order and the new covenant. And then brings the two together. Neither do I believe that all Israel will be saved means every ethnic Jew, no matter where they live or what they believe, will be saved, since he has already said only a remnant will be saved. If all Israel means all without exception it can only mean all the elect whether Jew or Gentile will be saved, referring to spiritual Israel not ethnic or national Israel. True Israel. The people of God. Through faith in the person and work of True and Faithful Israel, my Lord Jesus Christ.

The church is removed (all elect saved at the time) to avoid the hour of testing that is to come upon the world. I mean, to avoid God's wrath that is coming to a planet Earth near you. It is at that this time the world faces the Great Tribulation that includes God's wrath upon the world. The 144,000 sealed Jews and the two witnesses (Elijah and Enoch? the only two people who have not had their appointed death time as the rest of humanity has) will be witnesses and missionaries during this time (the 144000. The two witnesses serve a different, though related purpose). When Revelation comes to a close, the book of the story of the redemption of God's elect in Israel will be closed, and a new book opened, where all men are the chosen people of God in eternity. Where He calls those who are not His people, His people. I kept this short, so it isn't perfect.

The precedent can be found here: Eph 2: 11-22; Romans 9:6-7; Gal 3:7-9; 1 Peter 2:9-10 which echoes Ex 19:5-6: Romans 10:12

I don't know about you, but I have been in tribulation since I was born. The very fact that all mankind are sinners and God subjected the entire creation to futility (Romans 8) results in tribulation. When was the last time you read the book of Ecclesiastics? Why does it have to be one or the other? Look at what the church has gone through and is going through and will go through, and her people for the sake of Christ.

I have never believed that any tribulation I have faced, that I might consider tribulation, can or has in anyway held up any kind of candle next to what Jesus or the apostles faced. Not to mention the Great Tribulation that is unparalleled in all time. There is also this point about an hour of testing that comes upon the whole world, that those who hold fast to God and Christ will avoid.

I agree, except he does not have another flock. He has one flock. When Jesus spoke of his sheep not of "this flock" he was speaking to Jews about Jews because he was sent to his own people. It was the apostles who first began gathering the flock in Israel and one apostle appointed specifically to begin gathering the Gentiles. He was not saying that they would remain two flocks until after he returned for a thousand years.

What did Jesus say "“I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd." One flock with one shepherd. The church. These other sheep are Gentiles. However, in the world of the unsaved, there are two flocks. In the church, it is one flock. So, outside of the church it is two flocks until all are made one.

All I will bother to say to that is "You've got to be kidding me!!" I think that would probably be echoed by most if not all active on the forum, even some dispensationalists.

Since when did you start believing that the Gentiles are God's covenant people? That is the point. Israel are God's covenant people, and thus are His by His name. The Old Testament was more clear when Israel was to be God's chosen people by His name in the midst of the heathens. A light for Him. They failed obviously, but God would not deny them. The "other sheep" are the Gentiles, who are not His chosen people, that is to say, they are not His covenant people. They too are to become a part of His fold in the church. So no longer is it JUST the lost sheep of the house of Israel, but these "other sheep" which He must also gather in.

That pretty much came to an end when he destroyed Jerusalem and wiped out any possibility of worshiping him in the old way ever again. They broke the covenant. But God continued to keep his word and he created a new Israel (the people of God) and a new covenant, just as he long ago said to Abraham he would, and before that cursed the serpent with that promise. And the new covenant belongs to the elect of God in all nations and times. Some of them are Jews in the US or Canada or Mexico or Europe and Asia or Israel etc. Not replacing Israel but a re-created Israel that has no land boundaries and no temples, and no animal sacrifices. We worship in spirit and in truth.

That is the thing. We are getting to the point where Israel is ready to star worshiping him in the old way. They are at the point where all it takes is a word, and they rebuild the temple and start the sacrifices again. They already have every temple implement recreated to biblical spec. The only thing they need is the temple. They even have the red heifers required to consecrate the people coming to the temple. They have also been practicing the sacrifices (and have been arrested for it) in preparation.

And there we have it. Daniel is the means by which one must interpret the NT. Why is it that you cannot just show the scriptures from the NT that you think support your view? You could be completely wrong in your interpretation of Daniel and the 70 weeks and misapplying it completely. I think you are wrong. But I have already told you I am not going there in this thread, and so you won't interpret my mind by your mind I announce my reasons according to my mind, I will tell you why. We have done that in the past. It was fruitless and it will be just as fruitless this time around. It is time consuming and tedious, and frankly, since it is fruitless, boring and repetitive for a forum.

Okay, this just happens to be one of my pet peeves. My interpretation of the 70 weeks is not wrong. (note, I did not say the prophecy, I said the 70 weeks). God's sovereignty, God's very nature depends on the 70 weeks being 70 weeks. That is what is at stake. Is God God, and is He who He claims to be? God decreed/commanded 70 weeks for the Jews and for Jerusalem for certain things to take place. Not one minute more, not one minute less. What we don't have here is anything that says that the 70 weeks are consecutive. What we do have is writing that shows that the first 7 and then 62 weeks are most probably consecutive, considering they are named. I believe it speaks to 69 consecutive weeks. I believe it is written as such because a specific event occurred at the end of the 7 weeks, and a specific event happened after 62 weeks that is not related to what happened after the 7 weeks. Rebuilding of Jerusalem, or some other event, and the crucifixion of Christ. Not really similar. They are blocked for some reason, perhaps simply because he started with it broken down as 7 and 62. What we get is not, in the 70th week such and such happens, but after the 62nd week such and such happens. A gap. A gap as such that the 70th week is introduced as "27And he will confirm a covenant with the many for one week," Why doesn't it say "for the 70th week" given that he had no issue mentioning 7 weeks and 62 weeks, instead of just saying 69. I mean, very dedicated, and Daniel is writing down the words of God from His lips, to Gabriel, to Daniel. It is being very specific, until the 70th week. There is a gap. So no consecutive name given (70th week), but is a week so it is "for one week". His way of saying, here is the 70th week? Even the Early Church Fathers could not get around the fact that it clearly shows a gap in order for it to include what happened in 70AD. (Note: my beliefs on what happened is not at all a reflection of what the ECFs believed. They had a completely different understanding of the gap, if I recall.)

There is a gap, and it has to be at least/about 30 years so that it ends in 70AD. For the very nature of God, there has to be a gap. It DOES NOT have to be what I said in the previous post. However, I believe it is what best ties together the testimony of scripture as a whole, not leaving the Old Testament out. That is me. Just please, for the sake of God's being, there is a gap. You don't even have to fill it in with anything.

 

[Arial]

Because, as I have been saying, DARBY WASN'T FIRST. So you shouldn't be talking about Darby, right? You should be talking about the rapture IN GENERAL. Why, because as you keep saying that you are saying, DARBY WASN'T FIRST. He didn't make anyone write books. He didn't make anyone make movies. They didn't dig him up and ask his opinion.

One thing it may have done is keep some people from becoming despicably wicked over fear that they may get left behind. That could be God's intention for allowing this to happen at a time that apostasy is great. How can we say God didn't allow it for His purposes, and just go out a rail against it, and if He did allow it, ultimately against Him?

You have not addressed post #47. Here you double down by telling me what I should not be doing in the OP and what I should be doing instead. I was not talking about Darby in the OP---I mentioned him. You are the one who began talking about him and a whole lot of other things completely irrelevant to the OP. The ECF and what not. I did not say he was first so there is no reason for you to have ever said he wasn't first. Or to continue to say it as though I had made that claim. This is the "first" that I applied to Darby.

This has been going on since Darby first brought it into the open in the 1830's. All generations since have been inundated with it.

So strike four after having been warned about your violations of Rule 2.2---misrepresenting a person.

The rest of your posts to me will go unresponded to by me. Others are welcome to do whatever they want with them. Reason: It has gone way outside the intended scope of the OP, can only be continued in one way and that by repetitive arguing.

 

[Josheb]

Because, as I have been saying, DARBY WASN'T FIRST.

Darby was first.

What Dispensational Premillennialists do with their own history is another deceitful teaching. They write about the history of Dispensationalism and they write about the history of premillennialism, but they never write about the history of Dispensational Premillennialism (DP). The reason they do not write about Dispensational premillennialism and Dispensational premillennialism is because there is no history for the two combined motifs prior to John Darby. One way to recognize this is when their "history" books repeatedly say "dispensational" but never "dispensational premillennialist." Dispensational premillennialism is much, much different then Historical premillennialism. That is why the Historicists changed the name of their viewpoint! They were horrified when Darby (Scofield, etc.) started teaching their nonsense. They wanted nothing to do with Darbyism. They wanted everyone to know their premillennialism was the historic viewpoint. Dispensational premillennialism has no history before the early 1900s. It is a radically different theology than anything previously held to be true in Christian thought, doctrine, or practice. They, DPist teachers are not being fully forthcoming, and every sentence of silence about what I have just said is a lie of omission.

It is true the ECFs and other early theologians used the word "dispensation" but they always did so in the context of the covenant, never as something completely separate and different from the covenant(s). What Darby and later DPists did was invent a meaning for the word "dispensation," removing it from its covenant context(s), and use their newly invented term to parse the Bible. No one did that before Darby.

 

[TMSO]

You have not addressed post #47. Here you double down by telling me what I should not be doing in the OP and what I should be doing instead. I was not talking about Darby in the OP---I mentioned him. You are the one who began talking about him and a whole lot of other things completely irrelevant to the OP. The ECF and what not. I did not say he was first so there is no reason for you to have ever said he wasn't first. Or to continue to say it as though I had made that claim. This is the "first" that I applied to Darby.

So strike four after having been warned about your violations of Rule 2.2---misrepresenting a person.

The rest of your posts to me will go unresponded to by me. Others are welcome to do whatever they want with them. Reason: It has gone way outside the intended scope of the OP, can only be continued in one way and that by repetitive arguing.

It could be continued by you dealing with 1: at least acknowledge God's nature at stake with the 70 weeks (timeline ONLY) in the 70 week prophecy. That's it. Outside of that, silence speaks volumes. 2. I actually wrote to the OP above. I can only consider that I was right in my observations in comment #46. (I use TMSO because I am an observer, watching and learning...) If you considered the actual thoughts and motives presented, you would know why I said it, and in the end... it has nothing to do with you, but me.

Since my response to post #47 seems to have disappeared, here is a gist (at least the first part. I don't want to spend another 3 hours writing it again, since you aren't going to read it anyway. (nothing to do with you... all fingers pointed at me. [as the reason why no one cares. It is obviously me, to me.]

You reason I said you shifted the goalposts is because I used the Old Testament as a premise to my argument (nothing substantial) and then you came out and said, Old Testament no longer allowed. Since that wipes out a premise, it is shifting the goal post.

As I said I don't want to go through all that writing again, even if I don't have a life. I do wonder what happened to the comment as that is just weird. (I would probably blame the system I am on.) Considering I actually brought up the OP, and you shut down, again, I feel justified for comment 46. Don't worry about it. I know it is about me and not you. (The reason why.) Always about me. A lesson well learned, and reinforced. (There is no sarcasm in what I just wrote.)