Biblically Optimistic and Gospel-Based
"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)
Posted on 01/14/2011 5:57:52 PM PST by topcat54
Evangelical book catalogs promote books such as Planet Earth: The Final Chapter, The Great Escape, and the Left Behind series. Bumper stickers warn us that the vehicle’s occupants may disappear at any moment. It is clear that there is a preoccupation with the idea of a secret rapture. Perhaps this has become more pronounced recently due to the expectation of a new millennium and the fears regarding potential Y2K problems. Perhaps psychologically people are especially receptive to the idea of an imminent, secret rapture at the present time. Additionally, many Christians are not aware that any other position relative to the second coming of Jesus Christ exists. Even in Reformed circles there are numerous people reading these books. Many of these people are unaware that this viewpoint conflicts with Scripture and Reformed Theology.
(Excerpt) Read more at reformed.org ...
A bit dated by accurate. Recall all the hype about Jesus' soon return back in the months leading up to Y2K.
"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)
It’s not that they think the rapture will happen.
It’s that they are worried that it won’t.
“as in the days of Noah......” the ark was a type of the Church ( the Body of Christ ) and all that are to be saved are in the ark. all the animals represent all nations and tongues to be brought in. lots of false teaching out there, especially the “pre-trib rapture”
A lot of US churches teach a version of the rapture that leads many suburbanites to believe that they will go straight from their air-conditioned houses or their air-conditioned SUVs to heaven.
There are persecuted Christian groups in other parts of the planet who have been looking for an imminent rescue for a century or more....
The stealing away will only come when all is fulfilled, and I believe most of us who remain will have been severely tested and refined by fire.
Only those who are willing to lay down their lives for their faith will find life.
I’ll read this later. Still amazed so many buy into text out of context that is a pretext.
Irenaeus tells us John wrote Revelation in the mid 90sAD which totally destroys the view of those that say all prophecy was fulfilled by 70AD. Irenaeus studied under Pollycarp who was John’s desciple. Yet they scoff at those of us who understand prophecy.
In The Rapture, we believers will be gathered up to meet with Christ "in the clouds." Christ does not return to earth at the point in thine of The Rapture. He brings us, The Church, His Bride, to Heaven to prepare for The Wedding Feast and ceremony.
At His Second Coming, He does battle with the Ancient Foe, casting him for a thousand years into The Pit, where he will be sealed for Christ's Millennial Reign as King over all believers on an Earth made new and perfect again.
That will be Our Lord's Secong Coming, according to an accurate reading of The Bible.
There are those whose faith is not in God's word, but instead are faithful to a man-made teaching of The Word. God's Holy Spirit does not "translate" for these lost, and they are thus deceived. Christ, hanging on the cross, said to the villain next to Him: "Truthfully I say to you, Today you will be with me in Paradise; your faith has saved you."
Jesus didn't tell him, "My Father picked you, but not that guy hanging next to you." The reason why Jesus didn't say that is because that wasn't what happened. This man elected to have faith in Jesus. He did no "work", he merely had faith in Christ, that Jesus was who He claimed to be. That's all it takes.
Calvinism is a lie, and it deceives and makes haughty and pious many who think themselves "specially selected" by God. God knew who would have faith before they were born, but that doesn't alter that these saints had faith, and that it is this faith which sets them apart, and makes them holy.
"For God so loves the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that all who believe in Him might never perish, but have life everlasting." John, 3:16
I know that your scales are firmly in place, for God has predicted even this, and there is no way I can remove them. God alone can do this. I will not change your mind, but I still owe you The Truth.
I'm truly sorry for you.
:-|
1. The article's hogwash has no foundation.
2. The article purports to talk about a major END TIMES phenomenon called THE RAPTURE from Thessalonians and essentially trashes one perspective on the Rapture. A major reason such theological cluelessness trashes the Rapture is that they trash the whole notion of the END TIMES BEING CURRENTLY, IN OUR ERA.
2.1 I don't know HOW OR WHEN "THE RAPTURE" will occur. I only know it's Biblical and WILL OCCUR in these END TIMES at some point. 3. I undercut the whole foundational premise of the Original Post by asserting that the END TIMES OBVIOUSLY IS RUNNING CURRENTLY IN OUR ERA. I encourage you to wake up.
4. A lot of idiotic questions, pontifications, issues are no longer worth my bother. I have grown weary of that level of discourse.
5. The truths about current realities are too obvious. Folks still groveling around at such a huge level of ignorance don't deserve to have a lot of those points responded to because the points fly in the face of too many solid facts and are too absurd to be worth a gnat's burp's worth of time and energy.
6. ANYONE WITH THE BRAZENNESS TO MAKE MY ALMIGHTY GOD FATHER-SON-SPIRIT OUT TO BE A LIAR ABOUT HIS EVERLASTING PROMISES TO THE BLOOD CHILDREN OF JACOB can expect to persistently earn my fiercest responses. I have not the least bit of an apology about that. I'm actually muting and "TONING DOWN" already, what I'd prefer to say--THAT'S WARRANTED to be said in response to such demonized hogwash from hell.
7. It is NOT a small thing to seduce the unwitting into the notion that ALMIGHTY GOD is NOT faithful regarding HIS EVERLASTING PROMISES.
8. You are welcome to think of me and feel toward me however you think God would approve of you doing. My task is to be a watchman on the wall, not win a popularity contest.
9. I will say again--I don't need to deal with the petty silliness of the points in the article because I trash the whole foundation the article is propped up on.
10. I hope to post shortly another bit of documentation showing quite startlingly starkly how WRONG the REPLACEMENTARIAN, PRETERIST/A-MIL/POST-MIL/RUN-OF-THE-MIL theological perspective of such willfully blind constructions are.
INDEED.
THX.
So are you basically saying that salvation is by works, it kind of sounds like your saying that to keep your salvation you most lay down your life for God, and if you don't then you will lose your salvation. What if a Christian fails the test, what if......it's sounds like works oriented christianity to me.
Scripture for this analogy? Since when did the Bible state anywhere that ark was a type of the church?
If the Rapture doesn’t happen pre-trib, there’s no point in it.
The tribulation is God’s judgment on an unbelieving wold. Since believers are well, believers, they have already been judged and declared innocent. There’s no point in leaving believers to suffer the wrath of God that He’s going to pour out on this planet.
Some way to treat the Bride of Christ.
Much agree.
I’m just not dogmatic about it.
You know, we can’t be. Personally, I think the best reading is pre-trib and I hope it’s right and I’d LOVE to be around for it, but if I’m not, I’m not.
My believing that it’s pre-trib isn’t going to make it so. If it’s mid-trib or post-trib, that’s what it’s going to be.
We read Scripture, come to the best conclusion we can about it, and let God do what he’s going to do. If we’re wrong, we’re wrong. There’s nothing anyone can do about it other than live our lives in such a manner that whenever it comes and whatever happens, we’re ready.
Never the less to base one's theology or his foundation of his theology on what the church fathers said is bad theology, good theology stands on it's own outside of what the church fathers said.
Use of the church fathers statements to further argue your beliefs, but don't use them to build your foundational beliefs, use them after your foundational beliefs are founded. I remember studying the seventh day Adventist arguments for the Sat worship from a historical point of view, they quoted several old church fathers from several early centuries to get their point across, I was convinced they were right, shortly after I shown differently, that they had misquoted the Church fathers and taken them out of context. That work that shown me differently was Walter Martin's book "The Kingdom of the cults" Now whether the Seventh day Adventist quote the church fathers correctly or incorrectly is beside the point that I really want to make, and that is if you can't argue your premillennialism view point outside of quoteing church fathers you have already failed in your theology or your search for the truth. Foundation Premillennialism needs to be built on the scripture it self, not church father statements. Same goes for the Postmillennial view point.
Thanks for your kind words.
QUITE SO.
QUITE SO.
Agree.
But you lost me on the following:
all the animals represent all nations and tongues to be brought in. lots of false teaching out there, especially the "pre-trib rapture"
I believe in pre-trib, but to call it false teaching is unfounded! Pre, mid, late, it's just a matter of opinion. There is NO right or wrong for either argument, as it's all speculation. If you were taught mid or late then that's your belief, but I can't be as bold to speculate that you are receiving "false teaching"! Btw, Noah's Ark is in line with why I believe in pre-trib.
Am deeply humbled and blessed by your kind words.
BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.
BLESSED BE THE WORD OF THE LORD.
We—all on earth; all in Creation become broken ON THE WORD OF GOD
or crushed under it.
Agree.
But you lost me on the following:
all the animals represent all nations and tongues to be brought in. lots of false teaching out there, especially the "pre-trib rapture"
I believe in pre-trib, but to call it false teaching is unfounded! Pre, mid, late, it's just a matter of opinion. There is NO right or wrong for either argument, as it's all speculation. If you were taught mid or late then that's your belief, but I can't be as bold to speculate that you are receiving "false teaching"! Btw, Noah's Ark is in line with why I believe in pre-trib.
YOU said, ‘it’s your altitude that I really don’t like’
= = =
What do you have against people who live a mile high?
You are a persistent treasure.
Actually, I failed to note . . .
I like living at my ALtitude! LOL.
Living at a mile high on the NM high desert could be a very life-saving thing in the future!
11 Saying, “’I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, and what thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Aisa: unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.”
I do not read the ‘day of the LORD’ as being a Sunday morning worship service. The reference to this is a specific particular time that is a dispensation of time. The so called ‘old’ is filled with references to ‘in that day’, ‘on that day’, and ‘day of the LORD’. The Bible is not nearly as disjointed as so many down through the ages have tried to make it appear.
Here is the quote from his book.
Irenaeus
Against Heresies
Book 5, Chapter 30, Paragraph 3
We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.
Titus Flavius Domitianus was Roman Emperor from 81 to 96. Domitian was the third and last emperor of the Flavian dynasty.
Proves that Irenaeus claimed that John wrote the book of Revelation toward the end of Domitians reign which would have been in the 90s long after 70AD.
AGREED.
So you hold what Irenaeus said to be on equal with the Scriptures, how do you know that Irenaeus knew what he was talking about. How do you know he didn't misquote Pollycarp or add to what Pollycarp said, How do you not know he was senile when he wrote what he said. How do you not know that Pollycarp hasn't been mistranslated or misquoted down the line. To boldly say that the preterist theology is absolutely incorrect because of what some one has said Irenaeus said is bad foundational theology. Most people would say Revelation was written post AD 70 because their study Bible says so, well I've got several study Bibles and they sure don't agree on every thing especially in the commentary part.A lot of them will say in their initial statement that a majority of theologians believe that Revelation was written post AD 70 but if you read on most of them will also say that their is a minority of theologians that believe and hold that Revelation was written pre AD 70. But either way if one has to build their theology on commentaries and what some one else says, it is standing on a pretty shaky foundation.
THANKS MUCH.
Imho, the REPLACEMENTARIANS
have as much of a rubberized ‘Bible’ and ‘history’ as most RC’s.
It’s really incredible to see bright people fooled by such nonsense.
>> the point that I really want to make, and that is if you can’t argue your premillennialism view point outside of quoteing church fathers you have already failed in your theology or your search for the truth.<<
The theology isn’t based on the quotes of church fathers. In this case I am using Irenaeus statement of when Revelation was written to prove that John’s prophecy was written after 70AD which destroys Preterist interpretation of Revelation.
The theology isn’t based on the quotes of church fathers. In this case I am using Irenaeus statement of when Revelation was written to prove that John’s prophecy was written after 70AD which destroys Preterist interpretation of Revelation.
INDEED.
My altitude is high on The Lord. ;) Some may not like that either.
Interesting . . .
What silliness.
Sometimes it seem like the vast bulk of REPLACEMENTARIANS
—majored in minors;
—minored in majors;
—got Phd’s in obtuseness, absurdity or irrationality as a life philosophy
etc. etc. etc.
OF COURSE MY THEOLOGY COMES FROM SCRIPTURE. PERIOD.
I believe the historical record about John’s authorship of Revelation is highly likely to be correct.
I realize that REPLACEMENTARIANS are as addicted to shucking and jiving and slipping and sliding all around facts, Scripture and history to justify their absurd notions about eschatology.
I'm sure you got that quote from your vast library of mult-volumes of the Church fathers, rather then a book written by your favorite premill author or your favorite premill web site. < /s>
LOL.
I know, I know, I’m the shrink . . . however, I’d still like to ask your opinion . . .
WHY IS IT that most of the more combative REPLACEMENTARIANS like the most combative RC’s are soooooooooooo
thin-skinned, prickly, stuffed-up, OB-COM, haughty, prissy, self-righteous, irrational, shallow, control-phreaqued, foot-stamping, constricted pontificators on FR?
What is it about the theology that seems to cultivate such ‘spokespersons’ ????
I don’t get it.
Seems to me it has to be related to ATTACHMENT DISORDER but I’m skeptical that explains enough of the common dynamic/ observations, attitudes.
It’s long been a curiosity.
THX THX.
>> So how good of you, you can quote at least two sentences of Irenaeus.<<
The full books are on line for all to read. Do your damn research before you try to scoff.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
Two sentences from Irenaeus that you quote is not going to convince me that Revelation was written after AD70, especially when you boldly state it is a fact that Revelation was written after AD 70, when in fact you really don't know but are going on what you have read from some premill book that you take as the gospel, that you put up there on the same level with the Bible maybe your putting it up their on a higher pedestal then the Bible.
I like that Christian attitude of yours. FR can bring the best or worst out of every one.
>>Two sentences from Irenaeus that you quote is not going to convince me that Revelation was written after AD70, especially when you boldly state it is a fact that Revelation was written after AD 70, when in fact you really don’t know but are going on what you have read from some premill book that you take as the gospel, that you put up there on the same level with the Bible maybe your putting it up their on a higher pedestal then the Bible.<<
I gave you book, chapter and page. Then I gave you the site where you can read the entire book, written by Irenaeus, yourself. Yet you accuse me of taking the quote from “some premill” book. Are you totally bereft of reading comprehension or so intent on your deception that you have been blinded to truth?
>>They aren’t here to debate CB<<
It’s surely becoming obvious they have their agenda and no amount of fact will lead them to truth. I keep in mind the readers of these threads who never post. I can’t just leave the reader with only the wrong view I guess.
And let me add on to that and say "or your favorite premill web site that links to the Irenaeus material."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.