If no Rapture - then what ?

[Wormwood]

You'll have eat crow with that kind of statement. John Darby's Dispensationalism also agreed in God's Word about His promises to the seed of Israel that their nation would be restored in final under Christ Jesus, even to include the original inheritances of the land to the 12 tribes. British Bible scholars of Darby's era like E.W. Bullinger also agreed with God's Word on that.

Sounds like you might be listening to some of the Hyper-Dispensationalists of later 20th century times.

Veteran,

I said that no Christian prior to the 1800s every believed that. Then I clarified (because of your objection that I couldnt possibly know what every Christian in history believed) to say that we have no recorded teaching of anyone ever believing that. Please take my words in context of our discussion...I cant rewrite previous posts in every new comment. So again, for 1800 years we have no recorded teaching of such an idea. My point was simply that you claimed I was refusing to see what Scripture clearly taught. My point was...why, if its so clear...has no one that we know of ever believed it until Darby? Does that make sense?

Hello Bitterness, perhaps you should change your screen name to "arrogance."
Prior to the invention of the printing press, the vast majority of the population was illiterate. During most of the church's history, anyone who had anything to say that disagreed with what came out of Rome was labeled as a heretic and at risk of excommunication, torture or execution. Do you possess every written document from every born again believer that ever lived? Highly unlikely. Do you possess copies of the documents that have been destroyed or hidden away, because they were deemed by "church authorities" as illegitimate or uninspired or heretical? Highly unlikely. Nothing that I've said is the least bit dispensationalist, but apparently you aren't able to understand what I'm saying. I've presented what God has said in His word, so you're really not arguing with me, but with Him. Show me your authority, I've already shown you mine; the Word of God. Your unbelief won't affect His will in the slightest, nor alter His plan. God will demonstrate Himself entirely just in the judgment by fulfilling His word. No man will be able to justify himself in his unbelief by claiming that God's word wasn't kept to those whom He gave it to. If you don't understand these things, perhaps you don't know God at all. If that's the case, then I urge you to confess your nature of sin to Him and your inability to save yourself, then throw yourself upon His mercy by believing in His Son, Jesus Christ. He is the faithful witness to everything we say and do, including those things which are being posted here.

Michael,
I'm not being arrogant. I'm stating a historical fact. I find your response very lacking in credibility for a number of reasons.

1) "Rome" was not a "Christian" empire until almost 400AD. Christianity wasn't embraced by the Roman empire until 313's Edict of Milan. So we have about 400 years of Christian history with tons on literature from the Church Fathers and various schools...such as Alexandria...and there is no record of anyone viewing the Millennium this way. ]

2) The idea that people did not want to share their ideas about Israel for fear of being burnt at the stake is about as historically misleading as you can get. There were tons of controversy, debates, and literature written on about every issue under the sun in Christianity. The church spent considerable time hashing out doctrinal matters regarding the person of Christ, Easter, the Holy Spirit, free will, baptism, the Second Coming and about every other topic you can mention. It was not until the middle ages that heretics were burnt (and even this was extremely rare). Most heretics like Arius and Pelagius were simply excommunicated. The millennium was not an issue that was deemed something worth excommunicating someone from anything I have ever read.

3) Maybe you are confused about the meaning of dispensationalism. The idea is that God has worked in various dispensations throughout the ages. According to the dispensationalists, we are currently in the "church age" and the millennium is the time when things will transition from focusing on the church to national Israel. I don't know how else I can interpret your previous comments as you have continually remarked that God's promises throughout the OT were directed to national Israel and not the church.

4) Everything above in italics I will ignore. Claiming I am on God's side and therefore you are arguing against God is meaningless. I could make the same comment to you and it would be just as pointless. If you are right, give me reasons, not declarations. David Koresh made similar comments and it didn't make him any less wrong.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Very very very very very very very very very little attention was paid to prophecy until the last 100 years

Hardly anyone even tried to tackle the book of revelation

And nobody was expecting Israel to be a nation again

All that changed in 1948 when Israel regained its homeland

Now we all think we are prophecy experts.

And like him or not , agree with him or not , it was Hal Lindsey who woke up the church to prophecy with his 1970's book ... "Late Great Planet Earth"

Tim Lahaye jumped on the bandwagon with his "Left Behind" books

Because of those mass publications nearly everybody has at least some awareness of endtime events , anti-Christs , mark of the beast etc.

Nobody has it all figured out perfectly ..... but it is much better than being completely asleep at the wheel

 

[veteran]

Veteran,

I said that no Christian prior to the 1800s every believed that. Then I clarified (because of your objection that I couldnt possibly know what every Christian in history believed) to say that we have no recorded teaching of anyone ever believing that. Please take my words in context of our discussion...I cant rewrite previous posts in every new comment. So again, for 1800 years we have no recorded teaching of such an idea. My point was simply that you claimed I was refusing to see what Scripture clearly taught. My point was...why, if its so clear...has no one that we know of ever believed it until Darby? Does that make sense?

You clarified for Michael, not me. I went back to read further what you had said to him. You're arguments are just all over the place, not making sense.

Apparently you're thinking about the promises Michael mentioned in view of later 'restoration' theology of the 18th and 19th centuries, essentially the various Zionist movements.

Since the orthodox Jews well knew throughout history those very promises God made to Israel about their restoration as a nation in the holy land again, you're gonna' try and push some ignorance that NO ONE in the Christian Church never heard about that from the Jews, or were not able to grasp it directly from God's Word AS WRITTEN?? I don't have time to take you through all the writings of the early Church fathers, and I think you well knew that, which is why you jumped on such error.

Who are you trying to fool?


But IF you want a Scripture proof per God's Word, that's VERY easy. The Ezekiel 47-48 chapters for one. The Book of Jeremiah. The Book of Daniel. The Book of Isaiah, etc. Shall I keep going?

Now HOW LONG AGO did God give His promise to keep and establish Israel as a nation before Him forever? Well, how long ago did His prophet Jeremiah live?

 

[Rocky Wiley]

The promise to make an everlasting kingdom was to Israel. To say that has not happened is to say Jesus was a false Messiah.

Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

The promise was not to those of the flesh, but to us who are of faith. Abraham is our father, and we are the children of faith.

 

[veteran]

The promise was not to those of the flesh, but to us who are of faith. Abraham is our father, and we are the children of faith.

That's where you are partly wrong.

In Rom.9 where you're referring to, Apostle Paul covered 'both' the seed of Israel in the promise, and those of faith not of the seed also. So we cannot just throw out the seed of Israel in the Promise.

Later in Rom.11:1-5, Paul shows how God has not cast away His people of Israel that He foreknew. Paul then speaks of a remnant of the seed of Israel which God had preserved unto Himself, according to election. That's solid proof of God's Promise to the seed of Israel. Then Paul goes into the matter of Gentile believers graffed in.

 

[Wormwood]

You'll have eat crow with that kind of statement. John Darby's Dispensationalism also agreed in God's Word about His promises to the seed of Israel that their nation would be restored in final under Christ Jesus, even to include the original inheritances of the land to the 12 tribes. British Bible scholars of Darby's era like E.W. Bullinger also agreed with God's Word on that.

Sounds like you might be listening to some of the Hyper-Dispensationalists of later 20th century times.

Well, I cannot help it if you are going to critique me for a statement I made to someone else without understanding our discussion.

You keep offering all kinds of argument, but zero substantiation. I can show you historical references to show that no one in "the Church" has ever taught this dispensational view that God's promises of the OT were for the national Jews as that is NOT how they understood the NT teaching on OT promises. So you are saying that people in the Church certainly believed this since orthodox Jews held this understanding? By that rationale, early Christians must have also believed that Mohammed is a prophet and Mecca is a holy site. We are talking about what Christians believe and what the early church taught....none of which includes dispensationalism or national Israel as the ultimate focus of God's promises with the Church as a mere dispensation.

[SIZE=medium]Dispensationalism is a tradition in evangelical orthodoxy that interprets the Bible—and indeed all history—in terms of a series of God’s dispensations. Originating in Britain in the 1830s, this approach, while showing variations over time, has consistently emphasized the authority of Scripture, discontinuities in the divine administration of history, the uniqueness of the church and of certain features of grace for the dispensation of the church (which began at pentecost), the practical significance of the universal church, the theological relevance of biblical apocalyptic and prophecy, a futurist premillennialism, the imminent return of Christ, and a national future for Israel (see C. Blaising and D. Bock 1993, 13–21; Millenarianism; Parousia).[/SIZE]



[SIZE=medium]Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, vol. 1, The Encyclopedia of Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999-2003), 854.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Dispensational (pretribulational) premillennialism is the newest of the four views, having arisen in the early nineteenth century in the British Isles. Dave MacPherson traces its crucial component, the secret rapture idea, to a feverish vision by a Scottish teenager named Margaret Macdonald in 1830. This idea was almost immediately integrated into the budding dispensational theology being systematized by the early Plymouth Brethren leader, John Nelson Darby. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]In the dispensational scheme all the OT prophecies about the kingdom of God were intended to be fulfilled in an earthly kingdom to be established by the Messiah for physical Israel. That was actually the purpose for which Christ came the first time. But when the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah, God simply postponed the kingdom until Christ could return to earth in his second coming. Only then would all the OT prophecies about the Jews and their kingdom be fulfilled. In the interim, as a kind of substitute for the kingdom, Jesus established the church. This present church age has no real continuity with either the OT period or with the millennial kingdom yet to come. It has been called a parenthesis in God’s real purpose, which has to do with the Jews. It is like the halftime events that separate the two halves of a single football game.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub., 2002), 484.[/SIZE]

If you have a resource that states otherwise...please share it.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Veteran,

I said that no Christian prior to the 1800s every believed that. Then I clarified (because of your objection that I couldnt possibly know what every Christian in history believed) to say that we have no recorded teaching of anyone ever believing that. Please take my words in context of our discussion...I cant rewrite previous posts in every new comment. So again, for 1800 years we have no recorded teaching of such an idea. My point was simply that you claimed I was refusing to see what Scripture clearly taught. My point was...why, if its so clear...has no one that we know of ever believed it until Darby? Does that make sense?

Not trying to single you out wormwood , but in 350 AB Ephraim The Syrian did some sermons on the rapture.
He was an important figure in the Eastern Orthodox Church back then

Mostly I wanted to point out that for the past 1800 years very few people could even read (or write) .... a few clergy could , but they had no interest or reasons to immerse themselves in prophecy , especially the Catholics , to this day they remain almost totally ignorant about future events , it does not even cross their minds.

The Protestant reformation and printing press slowly changed the landscape so that more people could read and study the bibles themselves , but nearly everybody was a rookie and many mistakes were made.

especially in the 1800's when we see so many "strange cults" start up .... some "leaders" who could understand parts of the bible would bamboozle a bunch of people .... ie: .... Mormons .... JW's .... 7th Day Adv ..... all those came from the 1800's , plus a lot more.

Things really changed in the past 60 years with more people being able to read , and now with the advent of computers and the internet it is wide open to billions of people ..... but many are still rookies when it comes to prophecy ... as we can tell by these endless debates.

So for those reasons prophecy (and rapture studies) are a recent phenomenon ..... but it is not simply because of Darby or some broad in the 1800;s having a dream about a rapture or something.

Wikipedia has a decent site on literacy ....
In the 1700's more than 70 % of the people could not read or write in France (an advanced society at the time)
in 1970 , 40% of the world could still not read or write ,
Today it is down to about 15% who are illiterate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy

Tho OT gives us a prediction about modern day knowledge and increasing interest in prophecy

Daniel 12:4 ..... But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

 

[Wormwood]

Don't worry, I dont take this personally. Its an intriguing study. Pseudo-Ephriam is a very late (post 8th century) Latin text. Moreover, not only is it likely not in any way connected to Ephraim, but the translation is in question regarding what it actually teaches. It is a very problematic work and certainly nothing providing any "proof" that the early church believed in a pre-trib rapture. That, I think, most scholars have agreed upon (except those who are desperately looking for a pre-trib rapture nugget to add validity to their views).

I think the suggestion that for 1800 years most couldn't read or write is a smoke-screen. JW's and other fringe groups could say the same thing regarding why no one embraced their views throughout the history of the church. We have volumes upon volumes of writings throughout history of church leaders, church fathers, monks and apologists...none of which teach such a doctrine. Again, this is not to say that it's right or wrong. Its simply to say that of the mountains of teachings and writings from the earliest understandings of believers we see nothing even close to what Darby taught.

I agree that many are "novices" when it comes to prophecy and/or biblical literacy in general. However, this is not because they have not pieced everything together in some mysterious way handed to us by folks like Darby and Hal Lindsay. Rather, its because people don't know the Old Testament, apocalyptic literature, or how the early church understood the promises of God as they relate to Christ. The problem today is that many people wanna grab their Bible and find America, Russia, Obama, Islam and whatever else in the pages of Revelation. It causes people to work out all manner of schemes while pulling scriptures out of context to form a end-times chart. This is NOT how apocalyptic literature worked. Early Christians understood that. If anyone was not a "novice" of reading books like "Revelation" it was the early believers to whom the book was originally addressed. They understood quite clearly what John's apocalypse meant including its imagery and symbols. Unfortunately, today, people have no such interest and are more concerned with fortune-telling and "signs of the times."

Finally, while Daniel speaks of sealing up and shutting the books on prophecy, we see the opposite in Revelation. In Revelation, the books are opened and John is told not to seal them up (Rev. 22:10). Jesus is pointed to as the focus of all prophecy and the one who opens the scrolls. I think Revelation makes it clear that in Christ we have the unveiling of all that was hidden in ages past. This is not about some final 7 year period, but the culmination of God's plans and purposes in Christ.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Hello again, wormwood,
Since Veteran has joined the discussion, and since responses are combined by the editor, it's becoming a little difficult to follow who is addressing who.
I will say that for my part, I was taught a little bit about dispensationalist doctrine about 15 years ago in a home study. My friend Andrew (who was in seminary at the time) may have mentioned Darby as being the one who presented the concepts, but I dismissed most of what we were hearing as irrelevant to my faith in Christ. I've never made the claim that God has provided salvation in any other way than through faith in Jesus Christ, but the discussion is not about means to salvation, rather, what alternatives are there to a belief in a pre-tribulation rapture.
I understand your point of view, however, I think that you present a very low view of God (or of scripture if you prefer.) I know full well that I've been dismissive of your arguments, but I will always dismiss argument based upon incomplete interpretation of scripture with a view to "historical precedents, understandings, or tradition" which abrogate large portions of scripture through "commonly accepted doctrine." There is good reason for some things to have been hidden by God, until the approach of His return.
You may ask why anyone should believe that God kept things hidden from His church, but again there are reasons to think this found in scripture.
As an example, Jesus told His disciples: 12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. John 16:12-13
Now we can assume that Jesus told His disciples or at least His Apostles all these troublesome things (through His Spirit) after Pentecost, yet nothing in scripture tells us that this is the case, nor does anything in scripture tell us that these things were to be revealed to His church in the first century, or the second, or third, etc.
Then you also have the passage from the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ: 17 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it.” Revelation 2:17
I'm reasonably sure that you wouldn't take this to mean that Jesus hid some angel's food under a rock or in a cave and was planning to give some to those who overcome. Jesus identified Himself as the true bread which came down from heaven, and if there is something of Himself which is hidden except to those that overcome, what would it be and where would you find it? I'll give you three guesses if you like, but the obvious answer would appear to be the spiritual food of His word, revealing more intimately His person and purpose. Of course, you've already compared either me or veteran (or both of us) to David Koresh, but generally a cult requires more than just a leader.
I can't speak for veteran, but I have no followers, nor do I have any desire to lead anyone. I didn't belong to any church, denominational or otherwise when I was saved, but rather was engaged in a protracted reading of scripture in my time off from work, and long question and answer discussions with my brother in Christ, Jerome, who was supplied by the Holy Spirit with every answer that I needed to hear. I found myself in a seriously bad situation and saw myself as a "dead man walking," just stumbling through life until that day that I would die and be cast into hell. I felt a certain desperation for answers because of my situation and the fact that it affected other people, and the Lord provided the answers in the person of His Son.
I received His Spirit while praying with this brother (Jerome) one sunny afternoon, just after work, and in one of our employee parking lots. I was believing, and my friend from work was willing to stand with me, holding my hands and guiding me in prayer, in the middle of a parking lot, just after 3:30 in the afternoon, off of one of the busiest streets in Jersey City, and there wasn't another soul around to witness it. While praying I felt the powers that I'd become accustomed to from my study of Chinese Internal martial arts, suddenly surge through my body and exit through a point on the crown of my head which corresponds to an acupuncture point. This was quite startling, but not without explanation, given that the "powers" developed through "internal martial arts" training are not really impersonal. I didn't believe because of the experience, but the experience certainly validated my belief.
I didn't join any churches immediately after my "conversion" either, but instead indulged in reading through the scriptures from front to back repeatedly for three years, developing a theology based upon what I was beginning to finally understand in scripture, as well as what I could receive from radio and television ministries as true. At one point I purchased a John MacArthur study bible, because I've always considered the man to be an excellent scholar, but I generally didn't read his footnotes until I had arrived at some understanding of the scripture through the teaching of the Holy Spirit. The fact that my theology was in agreement with his, for the most part, only encouraged me to trust the Holy Spirit as my teacher and as the only one to be able to teach me without error. I don't make the claim to be inerrant myself as the Lord's intent is to teach us what we need to know and to have fellowship with us in the process, but I trust in what He reveals to me.
My contention is that the Lord called me, taught me, and "sent me" as it were, to serve in the prophetic ministry, proclaiming His word, the coming judgment, the gospel of salvation, and the hope of the resurrection. Every event in my life has only confirmed the truth of scripture to me, even those things which I experienced in my 39 years of "wandering in the wilderness" (so to speak.)
My understanding from the Pastoral epistles is that I don't have the qualifications to be a Pastor, a bishop, or church elder, and as far as I can see, the only job that I actually have been both gifted for and prepared for is that of prophet. I don't claim to hear God telling me things, generally, but I am quite sure that He spoke at least two instructions into my spirit. One was during fervent prayer over the news that the pastor of the church that I was a member of, had decided to take a job as a Pastor in Florida to be near his parents. At that time the Lord brought to mind the simple phrase "feed my sheep," which I endeavored to do through men's bible study and the occasional Sunday school class at the invitation of the new Pastor. Later I realized that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable, so I endeavored to continue in the work in any way that presented itself.
The only other time that I knew without a doubt that the Lord had spoken a word to my spirit was within the last year or so, when I am quite sure that He instructed me to "tell everything." This is not to say that He is requiring me to give every detail of my life, but rather to hold nothing back of what He shows me in my study (and there are more than a few things I would've preferred to keep to myself.)
It really doesn't matter if you believe a thing that I've written here. The burden of the prophet is not to convince those he addresses, but to be faithful with his presentation, complete to his degree of understanding, and honest with those that he's been sent to. The things that I've been sharing in regard to this topic are only things which I've recently been receiving an understanding of, and none of it disagrees with sound biblical doctrine whether anyone has taught it before or not. In my experience of the last 17 years or so, people with a "classical" training from some seminary or college, or general "school of thought" are more inclined to trust the doctrine that they've received from others than the promises of God to teach us by His Spirit, but this allows the introduction of cumulative error. I don't expect anyone to simply accept what I say as true, but I would hope that any follower of Christ would be willing to examine the scripture and listen for "His voice" to confirm or deny what I present. If you don't have that trust in Him for such a basic promise, why would you even consider yourself a "believer?"
Again, I've admitted repeatedly that I once believed in a pre-tribulation rapture until the Lord taught me differently, and I have no doubt that I could be mistaken in some things that I've received from others that I consider brothers in the Lord, but I will in no way blaspheme the Spirit that is teaching me. If I were to agree with you, I might as well throw away my bibles and just chuck the idea of being a "Christian." If you can't believe the Holy Spirit and the scripture, then you have nothing.

 

[Wormwood]

Michael,

I appreciate your open and honest response. I am very glad to hear about how you came to the Lord and your commitment to studying the Scriptures. I'll just briefly respond to some of your comments, but I want you to know that I am not in any way angry when I write. I hope you do not read me that way. I understand you are a brother in Christ who is seeking to follow the Lord with your whole heart. I hope you understand that I am no different in that regard. If my comments seem pointed, I certainly do not mean them to be directed at you as a person. Rather, I simply am expressing my understanding through my own study, prayer and walk while explaining why I have not come to the conclusions that you have drawn in your study.

In my defense, I do not believe I hold a low view of Scripture. Rather, I think my personal views are about as strong on Scripture as possible. I believe the Bible is infallible and inerrant. I believe it is the very words of God in every detail. I strive diligently to study the Scripture through historical context, literary context, and even study the original languages so I can know the Word the best I possibly can. Moreover, I strive to live the Word in my daily life and encourage others to do the same. So while we may have interpretive differences, they certainly are not because I have a low view of Scripture. I just want to be clear in that regard because that is very important to me and something I have debated with more moderate and liberal believers in great earnest.

I believe it is possible that God has kept some things hidden from the Church, but unlikely. Paul declared that he did not fail to proclaim to the Ephesian elders the "whole counsel of God" (see Acts 20). Hebrews 1:1-3 indicates that Jesus is God's "last word." So while we may always understand things dimly due to our humanity and limitations in this world, I don't think it is because God has withheld some information from us. In my opinion, the hidden manna, white stone, and other promises made to the churches in Revelation have to do with rewards for faithfulness at the consummation of God's Kingdom. But that is not a significant issue in my book...we can move on.

I certainly did not intend to call you or veteran "cult leaders." My point was simply that when people use arguments such as, "I am on God's side and you are not. My words are from the Spirit and are true and yours are milk and carnal" then it is nothing more than a self-affirming rant. Claiming one's authority is drawn from God himself does not make it true. All kinds of off-base people have made the same claims and we all know them to be wrong. So I am not saying you two are like Koresh, but that people we all know to be in error can claim such claims. Making a claim is meaningless if you cannot show me Scripturally why it is so and intelligently respond to my view. If what either of you has to say is in agreement with God's Word and what I say conflicts with the Word, lets examine that openly as brothers. Let's not just say, "The Spirit told me this is true and if I agree with you then its the same as giving up my faith." Let me ask you, what is your faith in? Is it in your own convictions or in the Word of God? In my opinion, we should always have the humility and grace to listen to another brother or sister in humility like the noble Bereans who were eager to search the Scriptures on issues. When we feel we have no more room to grow and what we know has come directly from God, then we cease to learn and we are closed off to any voice but our own. I do not think this is how the Spirit works in the body of Christ. Moreover, I do not believe the Spirit gives us interpretations of Scripture as you suggest. You said,

If you can't believe the Holy Spirit and the scripture, then you have nothing.

By this statement I take it to mean that you feel your interpretation on the matters we have discussed comes from the Spirit (whereas mine obviously does not...unless the Spirit is sending mixed messages. Im sure we both would discount this idea). The problem with such a view is that there are millions of believers who disagree with the things you feel have been revealed to you by the Spirit and they claim their view comes from the Spirit. So who is right? This type of understanding leads to belivers trying to look down on each other by claiming their authority comes from God and their view is inspired. Of course both cant be right so you have a stalemate with each believer looking down on the other. This is not how the Spirit works. The Spirit gives us clarity of mind, puts teachers in our path, helps us to remember his word and helps us to apply it to our lives. But he does NOT give us inspired personal interpretations. The only one inspired was the author who wrote the Scriptures which means you do not need to be inspired to understand them. They already are inspired, they just need to be understood. This understanding does not come from a lightning bolt from heaven, but from diligently searching the Scriptures to understand them. This is what Scripture calls us to do....search the Scriptures...meditate on them...memorize them...and learn from others. The reality is we are all wrong in all sorts of areas. Unity does not come from making everyone believe my inspired interpretation. That is arrogance and leads to further division in the body. Unity comes when believers rally around God's word in humility...considering others greater than themselves. Then, together, we discuss, search and explore the Bible together. Certainly we will never all agree on everything, but we can be unified because we all understand that are doing the best we can and striving to be obedient to the Scriptures first and foremost. You don't have to give up being a Christian if you agree with me, nor would I need to do so if I agreed with you. Rather, it would just be two people sharpening each other that leaves both better as a result.

Finally, a word about seminaries. I find it sad that seminaries are often ridiculed and spoken poorly about in such ways. I have been to a host of seminaries and I assure you the professors are not trying to force students into their particular doctrines. Many students do not attend seminaries that line up with their personal convictions (especially in graduate work). Rather, seminaries are places where people who deeply love the Lord and commit their full time to studying the Scriptures strive together to understand the teachings of the Bible. Moreover, most seminaries spend a great deal of time exploring all the prominent views on problematic texts and doctrines so students can be aware of the broad scope of Christian teaching on a given area. While certainly the professor may share their personal convictions, I have never had a professor try to impose his/her beliefs on me. I assure you I have given plenty of kickback to professors I disagreed with and that type of dialogue was welcomed. Most professors and seminary students have learned enough to know there are a host of brilliant people with all kinds of different perspectives. It causes you to become more humble and gracious as you explore the intricacies of the views of others. While I may disagree with that person at the end of the day, I realize how deeply they love God and how faithful they are being to the Scriptures. That is to be commended. I hope that same spirit and love could be displayed on this site more often.

Be blessed.

 

[zhavoney]

I totally agree with Wormwood here. I also agree with Spirit covenant. It is a good Idea to start exercising faith to be ready for what is really coming.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Very good post wormwood

 

[Rocky Wiley]

That's where you are partly wrong.

In Rom.9 where you're referring to, Apostle Paul covered 'both' the seed of Israel in the promise, and those of faith not of the seed also. So we cannot just throw out the seed of Israel in the Promise.

Later in Rom.11:1-5, Paul shows how God has not cast away His people of Israel that He foreknew. Paul then speaks of a remnant of the seed of Israel which God had preserved unto Himself, according to election. That's solid proof of God's Promise to the seed of Israel. Then Paul goes into the matter of Gentile believers graffed in.

Hi veteran,

Thanks for the follow up, it made me look at the Word again.

We must ask our self if Paul is speaking of the future or to the Roman's of his time. The answer is in:

Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

In their time, not ours.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Michael,

I appreciate your open and honest response. I am very glad to hear about how you came to the Lord and your commitment to studying the Scriptures. I'll just briefly respond to some of your comments, but I want you to know that I am not in any way angry when I write. I hope you do not read me that way. I understand you are a brother in Christ who is seeking to follow the Lord with your whole heart. I hope you understand that I am no different in that regard. If my comments seem pointed, I certainly do not mean them to be directed at you as a person. Rather, I simply am expressing my understanding through my own study, prayer and walk while explaining why I have not come to the conclusions that you have drawn in your study.

In my defense, I do not believe I hold a low view of Scripture. Rather, I think my personal views are about as strong on Scripture as possible. I believe the Bible is infallible and inerrant. I believe it is the very words of God in every detail. I strive diligently to study the Scripture through historical context, literary context, and even study the original languages so I can know the Word the best I possibly can. Moreover, I strive to live the Word in my daily life and encourage others to do the same. So while we may have interpretive differences, they certainly are not because I have a low view of Scripture. I just want to be clear in that regard because that is very important to me and something I have debated with more moderate and liberal believers in great earnest.

I believe it is possible that God has kept some things hidden from the Church, but unlikely. Paul declared that he did not fail to proclaim to the Ephesian elders the "whole counsel of God" (see Acts 20). Hebrews 1:1-3 indicates that Jesus is God's "last word." So while we may always understand things dimly due to our humanity and limitations in this world, I don't think it is because God has withheld some information from us. In my opinion, the hidden manna, white stone, and other promises made to the churches in Revelation have to do with rewards for faithfulness at the consummation of God's Kingdom. But that is not a significant issue in my book...we can move on.

I certainly did not intend to call you or veteran "cult leaders." My point was simply that when people use arguments such as, "I am on God's side and you are not. My words are from the Spirit and are true and yours are milk and carnal" then it is nothing more than a self-affirming rant. Claiming one's authority is drawn from God himself does not make it true. All kinds of off-base people have made the same claims and we all know them to be wrong. So I am not saying you two are like Koresh, but that people we all know to be in error can claim such claims. Making a claim is meaningless if you cannot show me Scripturally why it is so and intelligently respond to my view. If what either of you has to say is in agreement with God's Word and what I say conflicts with the Word, lets examine that openly as brothers. Let's not just say, "The Spirit told me this is true and if I agree with you then its the same as giving up my faith." Let me ask you, what is your faith in? Is it in your own convictions or in the Word of God? In my opinion, we should always have the humility and grace to listen to another brother or sister in humility like the noble Bereans who were eager to search the Scriptures on issues. When we feel we have no more room to grow and what we know has come directly from God, then we cease to learn and we are closed off to any voice but our own. I do not think this is how the Spirit works in the body of Christ. Moreover, I do not believe the Spirit gives us interpretations of Scripture as you suggest. You said,


By this statement I take it to mean that you feel your interpretation on the matters we have discussed comes from the Spirit (whereas mine obviously does not...unless the Spirit is sending mixed messages. Im sure we both would discount this idea). The problem with such a view is that there are millions of believers who disagree with the things you feel have been revealed to you by the Spirit and they claim their view comes from the Spirit. So who is right? This type of understanding leads to belivers trying to look down on each other by claiming their authority comes from God and their view is inspired. Of course both cant be right so you have a stalemate with each believer looking down on the other. This is not how the Spirit works. The Spirit gives us clarity of mind, puts teachers in our path, helps us to remember his word and helps us to apply it to our lives. But he does NOT give us inspired personal interpretations. The only one inspired was the author who wrote the Scriptures which means you do not need to be inspired to understand them. They already are inspired, they just need to be understood. This understanding does not come from a lightning bolt from heaven, but from diligently searching the Scriptures to understand them. This is what Scripture calls us to do....search the Scriptures...meditate on them...memorize them...and learn from others. The reality is we are all wrong in all sorts of areas. Unity does not come from making everyone believe my inspired interpretation. That is arrogance and leads to further division in the body. Unity comes when believers rally around God's word in humility...considering others greater than themselves. Then, together, we discuss, search and explore the Bible together. Certainly we will never all agree on everything, but we can be unified because we all understand that are doing the best we can and striving to be obedient to the Scriptures first and foremost. You don't have to give up being a Christian if you agree with me, nor would I need to do so if I agreed with you. Rather, it would just be two people sharpening each other that leaves both better as a result.

Finally, a word about seminaries. I find it sad that seminaries are often ridiculed and spoken poorly about in such ways. I have been to a host of seminaries and I assure you the professors are not trying to force students into their particular doctrines. Many students do not attend seminaries that line up with their personal convictions (especially in graduate work). Rather, seminaries are places where people who deeply love the Lord and commit their full time to studying the Scriptures strive together to understand the teachings of the Bible. Moreover, most seminaries spend a great deal of time exploring all the prominent views on problematic texts and doctrines so students can be aware of the broad scope of Christian teaching on a given area. While certainly the professor may share their personal convictions, I have never had a professor try to impose his/her beliefs on me. I assure you I have given plenty of kickback to professors I disagreed with and that type of dialogue was welcomed. Most professors and seminary students have learned enough to know there are a host of brilliant people with all kinds of different perspectives. It causes you to become more humble and gracious as you explore the intricacies of the views of others. While I may disagree with that person at the end of the day, I realize how deeply they love God and how faithful they are being to the Scriptures. That is to be commended. I hope that same spirit and love could be displayed on this site more often.

Be blessed.

Hello again wormwood,
Scholars tend to believe that their opinions are justified by their scholarship, and also tend to be highly offended when anyone suggests that their scholarship gives them no authority in Christ's kingdom. If I thought that there were no value to studying deeper than just the biblical text, I wouldn't bother with any historical reading to help place things in context, but if you don't believe that the Holy Spirit teaches us through His word, then your unbelief is enough of a reason for Him not to do so in your own time of study. That is, why would He show you anything, if you're unwilling to believe what He's showing you? Some Christians say that there are no longer gifts of the Spirit given to believers, but such unbelief is again more than enough reason for a person to never manifest them. The Lord doesn't generally reward unbelief. However, it isn't uncommon to hear missionaries relate stories of miraculous healings and other signs, not performed in the carnival atmosphere of a tent revival, but in villages in places like the African nations, or the jungles of South America.
As far as those things which are revealed to the Church, Jesus said that it was given to His disciples (and we are His disciples as well if we have received Him) to understand His parables, but the parables were given in that form to confound those who didn't believe Him. Since the gospels and epistles were not written in some unique language for believers only, but in common Greek, any person able to read could simply pick them up and read them, and people still do to this day. We only have a few parables explained to us by Christ in scripture, but we don't know with any confidence that the "unexplained" parables are being correctly interpreted, especially when we find varying interpretations of the same verses. How many verbal traditions survived the early persecutions of the church? To what extent did the Hebrew Apostasy of the 1st century affect any verbal traditions passed down to us, given that there were "wolves among the sheep" even in the first century? If there are numerous interpretations of scripture by sincere believers it could have something to do with a lack of mature understanding. I fully accepted the notion of a pre-tribulation rapture when I first heard the doctrine explained as it seemed reasonable, had some scriptural support, and most significantly had a direct appeal to my carnal nature, my fear (get out of jail free mentality.) And why should we ever believe that anyone in the church (myself included) has ever come to a mature understanding of the scripture? Has the church ever come to represent the full stature of Christ? I've only been around for the last 57 years, but I've yet to meet a single soul that even comes close to the image of God as represented in Christ Jesus. Some believers certainly seem more Christ like than others, but if the Church had ever reached maturity, we would no longer be swayed or "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting."
To suggest that the scriptures can be understood by anyone through faithful scholarly study is to deny what the scriptures say about themselves. If scholarly study were enough, the Pharisees would've fallen on their collective knees at the feet of Jesus instead of demanding His crucifixion.
My previous statement, "If you can't believe the Holy Spirit and the scripture, then you have nothing," wasn't specifically aimed at you, but is a general scriptural "truth." Faith comes by hearing and that of the Word of God, and it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict of sin and convince of truth. Consequently, without believing the Holy Spirit and the scripture there can be no faith, no salvation, no resurrection power, no eternal life, nothing. I almost would say that I don't like being called a "Christian" because there is so much which calls itself Christian yet remains spiritually dead. There is another name for those who have received the Lord, but that name is given to those to whom it is given and to no one else (though some have chosen to use it for themselves.) It is a name for glorified Israel and I only find it 4 times in scripture. Do you know it? It doesn't really matter whether you do or not, but if your faith is genuine (and I'm inclined to believe that it is) then in time you certainly will know.
Finally, I'd like to add that I don't believe sharing our "opinions" of scripture sharpens us at all. There are many applications of scripture, but only one proper interpretation. Sharing opinions is far more likely to divide believers than to bring them together as evidenced by the large numbers of church splits throughout history all effectively caused by varying opinions. In my personal experience, Iron sharpens Iron, when like minded believers meet in groups which hold each other accountable, share each others burdens, confess sins, and pray for one another. We use to call this a prayer meeting, but there are fewer these days than when I first believed and far fewer in attendance as well. Such fellowship demonstrates "Christian" love and its only in such love that the body reaches anything approaching maturity.

 

[John S]

If there is no Pre-Trib Rapture, then most Christians will probably die or they will be deceived into thinking that the AC isn't the AC - which may very well happen to Pre-Tribbers. Then they are in very big spiritual trouble.

 

[Wormwood]

Michael,

I never said the Holy Spirit is not active when reading and studying the Word. I said he does not implant divinely inspired interpretations. Big difference.

I never said I was a cessationist. However, I would disagree that you have to believe in such manifestations to experience them. The Biblical record seems to show that such experiences were not expected when they happened. Does God perform miracles today? Yes, I believe so. However, some of the manifestations some attribute to the Spirit I believe are misguided and do not accurately reflect the nature and function of the gifts as seen in the NT.

How did the real followers learn the parables? Not by a mystical experience, but because the stuck with Jesus when the pretenders wandered off and he explained them. The parable stories do not give credence dance to personal illumination of the Scriptures.

I didn't say scholarship was the true means of knowing God through the Scriptures. Certainly there are biblical scholars who aren't even believers. However, the Bible is not like one of those 3d pictures that no one can see unless God chooses arbitrarily to have the meaning jump out. The meaning can be understood by anyone who searches them, but not all choose to humble themselves and believe. It's mans hardness and unbelief that keeps him from God, not Gods unwillingness to open eyes. The Gnostics taught that they had special knowledge "gnosis" that Christ had given to them and no one else. This is the stuff of heresy. Gods mystery in Christ is made plain to all and is perfectly preserved in the inspired Word for anyone to see and understand. It's not a riddle, mystery or secret teaching God is hiding from the world.

 

[zhavoney]

The Lord is the one who instituted being a scholar of the word of God.
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
​Those who do not study to show themselves approved to God are at the mercy of what men say.

If you truly study to show yourself approved to God. You can learn from the scriptures who and where God is and How to receive His Holy Spirit.

 

[veteran]

Well, I cannot help it if you are going to critique me for a statement I made to someone else without understanding our discussion.

You keep offering all kinds of argument, but zero substantiation. I can show you historical references to show that no one in "the Church" has ever taught this dispensational view that God's promises of the OT were for the national Jews as that is NOT how they understood the NT teaching on OT promises. So you are saying that people in the Church certainly believed this since orthodox Jews held this understanding? By that rationale, early Christians must have also believed that Mohammed is a prophet and Mecca is a holy site. We are talking about what Christians believe and what the early church taught....none of which includes dispensationalism or national Israel as the ultimate focus of God's promises with the Church as a mere dispensation.



If you have a resource that states otherwise...please share it.

The disscussion here between you and Michael is easy enough.

You're obviously an Amillennialist, throwing away the events of Christ's still future "thousand years" reign of Revelation 20, which are written in many Old Testament Scriptures also; I quoted one of them to you, a section from Zech.14, but of course... you REFUSED to respond to it, and immediately... tried to change the subject. By that you've given us enough proof that with parts of God's Word that strongly conflict with the 'doctrine of men' you choose to follow, you simply DISREGARD that part of God's Holy Writ.

The very Hebrews 11 Scripture in the NT declares God's Promises to Abraham involving inheritance of the promised land...

Heb 11:8-10
8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
(KJV)

Heb 11:13
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
(KJV)

God's Promise to Abraham about the land was NOT about a fulfillment in this present world, but in the world to come. That's why this Hebrews 11:13 verse says clearly they all died in faith, "not having received the promises"! Instead, they saw them afar off, and by Faith believed God would accomplish them like He said. And because of that they KNEW they were but "strangers and pilgrims on the earth", meaning in this present world, while waiting for the world to come under Christ Jesus.

Heb 11:16
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for He hath prepared for them a city.
(KJV)

That "city" is shown in the Ezekiel 40 through 48 chapters, with the very last phrase of Ezekiel 48 declaring, "The LORD is there". In the Ezekiel 47 chapter, the LITERAL layout of all the 12 tribes of ISRAEL in the land of Promise is written, even their borders being defined.


It's THAT Biblical Scripture evidence above that refutes... your crazy arguments that none knew about those Promises prior to the 1800's.

And here's another easy Scripture evidence that refutes your arguments...

Matt 19:28
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
(KJV)


Jesus said that above to His Apostles.

Rev 21:10-12
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;
12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
(KJV)

Those are NEW TESTAMENT evidences of God's future fulfillment of His Promises to Abraham and to the SEED of Israel in that future world to come!

So did NOT Apostle John understand what Christ was showing him there?

Did Ezekiel not know?

Did NONE of the early Church understand what they were reading with those Scriptures???

To say the early Church was not aware is like some huge blanket generalization that you can NEVER live up to.

You will have... to... eat CROW, like I said.

 

[zhavoney]

Abraham's seed is Christ and all who follow Him. That is who the promises were made to. He will not share His glory with another.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Michael,

I never said the Holy Spirit is not active when reading and studying the Word. I said he does not implant divinely inspired interpretations. Big difference.

I never said I was a cessationist. However, I would disagree that you have to believe in such manifestations to experience them. The Biblical record seems to show that such experiences were not expected when they happened. Does God perform miracles today? Yes, I believe so. However, some of the manifestations some attribute to the Spirit I believe are misguided and do not accurately reflect the nature and function of the gifts as seen in the NT.

How did the real followers learn the parables? Not by a mystical experience, but because the stuck with Jesus when the pretenders wandered off and he explained them. The parable stories do not give credence dance to personal illumination of the Scriptures.

I didn't say scholarship was the true means of knowing God through the Scriptures. Certainly there are biblical scholars who aren't even believers. However, the Bible is not like one of those 3d pictures that no one can see unless God chooses arbitrarily to have the meaning jump out. The meaning can be understood by anyone who searches them, but not all choose to humble themselves and believe. It's mans hardness and unbelief that keeps him from God, not Gods unwillingness to open eyes. The Gnostics taught that they had special knowledge "gnosis" that Christ had given to them and no one else. This is the stuff of heresy. Gods mystery in Christ is made plain to all and is perfectly preserved in the inspired Word for anyone to see and understand. It's not a riddle, mystery or secret teaching God is hiding from the world.

Congratulations, it sounds like you're almost convinced, however that isn't my job, but His.

The Lord is the one who instituted being a scholar of the word of God.
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
​Those who do not study to show themselves approved to God are at the mercy of what men say.

If you truly study to show yourself approved to God. You can learn from the scriptures who and where God is and How to receive His Holy Spirit.

The key to that verse is the word "show." It isn't the study which brings approval, rather the study demonstrates the approval when it leads to sound doctrine.