has absolutely nothing to do with the rapture. It's a simple benediction.

quote:

---

(1) All teachings specific for this dispensation were given to Paul
First up, Paul, then after that, more Paul, then because Paul is THE one who was given all this revelation for this dispensation, this will be followed up with more from God through Paul. God describes the gospel and preaching of Jesus Christ was a mystery kept secret until now being made manifest, as in being given currently to Paul, not otherwise. This entire collection shows differentiation between our current dispensational teachings, and all others as being this unique.

But don't take my word, take God's

(1) Ro 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began 26 but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith——

---

• You accuse me of presenting off topic arguments.
  (Not so. The pretrib rapture, is according to a mystery teaching through revelation that was only given to Paul, as such, all attempts to alter Pauline uncircumcision teachings with circumcision teachings is a violation of God's word that makes says these two different revelations are different, the messages are not synonymous.)



• You accuse me of focusing on dispesnationalism.
  (Not very accurate, twice in a row you have missed my focus. But hay, I'm human, you have yet to exhaust my patient desire for setting things straight.)



• You accuse me of false dispensational teachings about non-overlapping whatnot.
  (You need to learn to curb your presuppositions and become more concerned with the truth of a matter.)



• And then you pull the big one, you said

quote:

---

And two, your dispensational comments did not bear on the issue of whether Paul taught a rapture, let alone a pre-trib one.

---

quote:

---

Establishing that the current dispensation is a mystery dispensation and Paul received exclusive teaching for it, even if true, does not reinforce the claim that Paul taught a pre-trib rapture, which claim was my focus.

---

quote:

---

When I say scripture does not plainly teach a rapture, I mean not that it fails to plainly teach final union of the saved with God, but that it fails to plainly teach some earlier and partial gathering. Note I say this to clear up any possible confusion among other readers, not out of any particular sense that you have misunderstood me on this, for I don't think you have.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scott_jorgenson

quote:

---

Originally posted by msekee

Did anyone else see the article on the Left Behind series and the intervies with LaHaye and Jenkins in Newsweek? What I found most interesting wasn't the actual article, but the related article about the origins of the book of Revelation and how it's been interpreted over the years. ... Any thoughts?

---

This is a huge topic (what isn't, come to think of it, when you start digging). I'll try to give a reasonable summary.

Throughout history, and even today as well, the Christian church in regard to Revelation has been characterized by about four (give or take) basic interpretive frameworks. These are not the same as specific interpretations, but rather they are categories of related specific interpretations - ie, if you take the dozens or hundreds of specific spins on Revelation that have appeared over the centuries, you'll see they tend to fall into one of these frameworks (or more - they are not necessarily exclusive).

• Futurism is the basic interpretive framework that receives the most publicity today. In this framework, Revelation is largely a prophecy of actual end-time events. Those most inclined toward inerrant literalism tend to be futurists - their reason being, that if prophecy must be literally inerrant, then obviously John's prophecies haven't been literally fulfilled even to this day, so they must at least still be largely future to us today; and since John, on the face of it at least, links his prophecies directly to the end times, they must therefore really be about the future end.
  
  Note this view must necessarily handwave the equally literal proclamations John makes about the near-ness and soon-ness of what he describes. Furthermore, futurism - while basing itself largely on literal inerrancy - nonetheless itself often downplays literal interpretation of some of the most fantastical elements of Revelation, such as waters turning to literal blood and the literal stars falling literally to earth. So, IMO, the literalism inherent in futurism is necessarily selective.
  
  In any case, futurism is certainly the dominant popular view today. All popular discussion of Revelation in regard to rapture, antichrist, Armeggedon, tribulation, etc - all of it is situated within a basically futurist framework. For example, whether you are premillenial or postmillenial, both assume a future literal millenium of peace on earth in current space-time, and a literal bodily return of Christ to current space-time - the only question is whether Christ comes before (to usher in) the millenium, or after (to cap it off). And whether you are pretribulational, midtribulational, or posttribulational, all assume a future literal 7-year tribulation (prior to Christ's literal return and onset of the literal millenium - making the debate valid only within premillenialism), and all assume a literal rapture of believers, the only question being the relative sequence of tribulation and rapture.
  
  The most popular futurist subdivision today is undoubtedly pretribulational premillenial dispensationalism: Revelation predicts future end-times events, which begin with a literal bodily rapture of believers (Christ's secret return), followed by a descent of the world into chaos over 7 years (a literal tribulation marked by antichrist and capped with Armaggedon), followed by the literal bodily return of Christ (his public return) to vanquish evil and initiate the literal millenium of peace on earth (in turn followed by yet another explosion of evil and Christ's second victory). This system is part of dispensationalism - which is actually a much larger, almost painfully elaborate, inerrancy-inspired theological system which incorporates this particular breed of futurism as an element, but goes much further. Interestingly, for all the emphasis on "plain" literalism and inerrancy, dispensationalism, and pretrib premill in particular, date only to the 19th century - evidently it took a long time for the "real" plain meaning to come forward.
  
  Incidentally, in concession to this kind of criticism I suppose, recently (mid- to late-20th century) a revised form of dispensationalism has arrived: progressive dispensationalism, which looks for "now / not yet" double meaning in Revelation - for example, mixing classically-future dispensationalism with recognition of preterist and idealist themes (more on these below) in context.



• On to other interpretive frameworks for Revelation. Historicism gets little press today, but apparently was popular throughout the Middle Ages. Here, Revelation is largely seen as a prophecy of actual historical events from John's time all the way up to the end times. So, for example, some have seen the seven churches (Revelation 1-3) as symbolically prophesying the development of the Church through the ages. Seeing the devolution of the Catholic Church into the whore of Babylon, and the Protestant reformers as the two witnesses and the 144,000, has been popular (among early Protestants, at least, as you'd guess :-). And so forth.
  
  Note how historicism, like futurism, emphasizes actual events future to John, culminating in the eschaton (resurrection, judgement, etc). The difference is that historicism stretches those events through history and accordingly reads each particular prophecy more symbolically (as it must, since none have literally taken place). In any event, historicism has largely died-out, from what I can tell.



• Preterism is a widespread interpretative framework for Revelation today, including most mainstream/mainline scholarship, and some conservative as well. But it gets relatively little exposure in the popular press, probably (IMO) due to its less-sensational nature (and less-sensational advocates) in combination with the vehement opposition of dispensationalists.
  
  Preterism is the view that Revelation is basically an apocalypse regarding actual ancient events which were approximately contemporary at the time of John's writing. In particular, the events surrounding the first Roman-Jewish war and destruction of the Second Temple (70 AD) are in mind here. Preterism says that Revelation describes these events (which were a crisis in the early, largely-Jewish Christian community) cast into the semi-prophetic, semi-poetic, semi-fictional literary genre of "apocalypse" which was popular at the time.
  
  Thus, in the preterist framework, some passages of Revelation are more-or-less literal allusions to Nero, the seige and conquest of Jerusalem, etc, while others are symbolic and even totally non-correspondent, non-literal exhortations to faith and strength in the reader. Some (more conservative) preterists would claim a pre-70 AD authorship for Revelation, and describe the more-or-less literal allusions as predictive prophecies. Others (more moderate or liberal) would accept a late date, and deny an advance predictive element (since retrodiction was an accepted-at-the-time literary convention within the apocalyptic genre). More conservative preterists would concede that John's passages directly linked to the eschaton (resurrection, judgement, new creation) are futurist - ie predictive of those actual end time events. More moderate or liberal preterists would accept them as apocalyptic - for example, though there will be an eschaton (at least in the moderate view), John is not predicting it in any degree of literal detail, but is instead using the already-accepted eschatological imagery of the day to encourage the people.



• Finally, idealism is probably the hardest of the interpretive frameworks to grasp, but it is exactly what the Newsweek article alluded to when referring to Augustine. Like preterism, idealism considers Revelation an apocalypse, yet unlike any of the other 3 frameworks, idealism considers Revelation to deal with, not actual events, but timeless principles and powers. By timeless, I mean continual, present in every situation in history and daily life. In this view, Revelation is meant to be a radically-symbolic, non-literal, you might say "fictional", description of the struggle between good and evil - an exhortation for Christians to stand fast in hope until the eschaton (whenever that may be) when all things will be set right.
  
  Clearly, since Revelation is written in a first-person narrative form - first I saw this, then that, then the other - idealism, by denying that these are literally or even symbolically meant to describe actual events in space-time, is the most non-literal of the frameworks. Historically, it became dominant around Augustine's time, as the early preterism and futurism of the church (more on this below) waned. Preterism dealt with events in the distant past and a by-then largely foreign (Jewish) context, and may have been politically incorrect at a time when the Roman Empire was now nominally Christianized. On the other hand, futurism had anticipated the imminent literal end-times fulfillment of the many perceived prophecies in the book - and yet the end had not come, even though Revelation had proclaimed its near-ness. This left idealism and the application of the book's encouragement to daily life, so it is not surprising that the idealist framework swelled to fill the void. Idealism later became so officially entwined with the Catholic Church, in a view that saw Revelation as exclusively allegorical, that many or most Protestants chucked it, and it has never been as dominant in Protestant churches as it was in the Catholic Church (and, I believe, remains to this day).

What did early Christians think? Critical research suggests (fairly convincingly, I think) that preterism mostly, plus idealism and a helping of literal futurism, best characterizes how early Christians thought about Revelation. Ie, they likely saw it most as being an apocalyptic and prophetic description of near-time events: whether near-future events or recent-past events depends on the date of authorship in relation to 70 AD (a so-finely-grained question that critical study cannot make a conclusive determination without involving presuppositions surrounding the reality and necessity of predictive prophecy). That is preterist, we would say today. The purpose they probably saw in that description, though, would have gone beyond mere relation of events, to excite and encourage and exhort the readership to stand fast in the faith under the pressures of their day - which was a time of increasing persecution: not just for Jews anymore, but now for gentile Christians as well. This is idealist. And finally, the early Christians also probably linked those near-time events and ideals to the end times - because their contemporary times were such a crisis, and they were so expectant, that, for them, those times were the end times. This, of course, is futurist (though of course they were strictly-speaking wrong about that).

As for me: since this early-Christian view is what Revelation would have meant to its audience in historical and cultural context, that is what it means to me. It is a preterist and idealist text with some literally-errant futurism thrown in. Not being an inerrantist, not to mention a dispensationalist, I am not troubled that John and his readers were "wrong" about their futurist expectations, for God's purposes for the book going forward were (in my view) largely idealist, and idealism is not compromised by literal "failure" of prophecy. Your mileage, of course, may vary, and Tim LaHaye would consider me a liberal apostate and heretic for saying this :-)

To read more about this: there are too many books, and too many bad books, to go through them all. I would start with Zondervan's Four Views on the Book of Revelation, which skips historicism (since it is mostly dead today) and presents conservative evangelical arguments for preterism, idealism, and both the classical and progressive forms of dispensational futurism. This book is particularly valuable for witnessing how there can be major, but faithful and charitable, dissent over Revelation within the conservative community. This book should dispel any thought that, to be a conservative evangelical Christian, one must adopt any one particular view of Revelation.

Next, if one is willing to look into the more moderate and mainstream part of the Christian spectrum, I greatly recommend Craig Hill's In God's Time: the Bible and the Future. This is a highly readable book that looks at eschatology throughout the Bible, not just in Revelation. It does not presuppose literalism and inerrancy - Hill in fact begins by giving a short, personal, and convincing case against these doctrines while still supporting biblical authority and normativity. Everything he then goes through makes good sense in light of that, including his critique of premillenial dispensationalism in the appendix. Highly recommended.

Hope this has helped,

Best regards,

Scott

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scott_jorgenson

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starkman


...
As to the rest of the rapture Scriptures...
Better interpreted as the "resurrection" Scriptures.

---

Yes, I agree: scriptures interpreted by dispensationalists as referring to rapture actually probably teach the eschatological resurrection instead. Thanks for putting so plainly what it seems to take me paragraphs to say.

Scott

---

quote:

---

My earlier posting in this thread should have made clear my high view of the authority of scripture, namely, that it is uniquely what God has intended it to be. I merely find it to be an extrabiblical, modernist presupposition that what God intends the Bible to be is an always-literal, always-historical, always-consistent, always-inerrant text. This is what systematic moderns accustomed to the analytical/critical method would like it to be, but I see no evidence that is what God actually intends for it.

---

God intends the Bible to be is an always-literal, always-historical, always-consistent, always-inerrant text.

• You argue against extra biblical views, with your own extra biblical view. = self refuting



• Please list ANY source to validate this claim. I suggest, that although you seem like a nice person, it is really your own invented conglomeration that does not accurately reflect anyone's view, a fiction that may have some fractured support spread across many different contextually disjoined references. = dubious or incredible claim



• Using the superlative "always" to qualify each of these concepts seems a pretty blatant case of exaggeration. = swapping figurative as being literal (and here I thought you were against being too literal)

quote:

---

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that because we are currently in a parenthetical dispensation, and Paul's teachings are for that dispensation, and the eschaton will occur in a later dispensation, then any reference Paul makes to a gathering of saints probably refers to something happening in this dispensation, ie, before the eschaton. In other words, rapture. Is that right?

I hope so, because otherwise I am not at all following what you are saying. But if my understanding of the view you're presenting is correct, then I don't see how it follows. As you say, Paul as well presents synonymous or cross-dispensational teachings, so simply because Paul says it does not mean it necessarily has to do with this dispensation.

---

Ro 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,

quote:

---

1way
I was just wondering how you can be so sure that your interpretation is the only correct one. I used to believe that there was one truth out there on virtually every subject, but recently have changed my mind, that there are actually many, many interpretations all backed up by scripture and espoused by great Christian men and women. I'm not saying there is no absolute truth at all. Afterall, there are some issues such as the resurrection that must be taken as absolute truth. But why does every Biblical issue need to only have one interpretation? And more importantly, who decides what that is?

---

quote:

---

I also wanted to let you know that the reason this thread was not started on the theology board is that I feel like I am way out of my league on that board. My questions are very elementary to the people who discuss over there - so I placed it here because I wanted just what I said "any thoughts?" I had no idea what all that would tie into - but I truly appreciated the succinct and informative post that Scott gave. I also was very grateful that he did not make me feel stupid for not already knowing all this - or for questioning it in the first place.

---

The old way of just accepting everything without question is driving people from the church. I believe God is strong enough to handle doubt and questions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1way

Scott - You said

quote:

---

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that because we are currently in a parenthetical dispensation, and Paul's teachings are for that dispensation, and the eschaton will occur in a later dispensation, then any reference Paul makes to a gathering of saints probably refers to something happening in this dispensation, ie, before the eschaton. In other words, rapture. Is that right?

I hope so, because otherwise I am not at all following what you are saying. But if my understanding of the view you're presenting is correct, then I don't see how it follows. As you say, Paul as well presents synonymous or cross-dispensational teachings, so simply because Paul says it does not mean it necessarily has to do with this dispensation.

---

Close, but your conclusion and reasoning is in error.

---

quote:

---

Paul's revelation is not according to other revelation, it was hid in God until finally given to Him. That is how this current dispensation is classified, it's teachings are NOT according to any other revelation but that which was given to Paul.

So

Next I think we should consider WHY did God do this exceptional plan with us the way He did. God cut off Israel due to national unbelief, and raised up Paul to usher in our current dispensation by purposefully not dealing with national Israel. So when we consider prophetic things that are specifically for Israel, we can pretty much count on the fact that they have nothing to do with us during this exception to the prophetic plan with Israel. There is no need to examine each prophetic sounding teaching from Paul to see if it might fit in with God's prophetic plan for Israel, because we are an exception from all that on purpose. The nature of the teachings for this dispensation are such that the last thing would we expect for a teaching from Paul, is that a rapture of us in the body of Christ should be the same message of another rapture concerning Israel. So it's not just about some mystery teachings, this dispensation is different on the basis for purposefully stopping what God was going to do with Israel.

---

• Whenever Jesus taught on the gathering at the end, at his return, his teaching was always evidently universal. For example, Matthew 25:31 and onwards:
  
  "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people from one another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, ..." (Matthew 25:31-32, NRSV)
  
  What elements do we have here? We have a return of Christ, we have a gathering of everyone to him, and we have a judgement. First, note it is a universal gathering ("all the nations") - the teaching is directed to all people of all time. That Jesus is speaking to Jews in context here, within the supposed dispensation of law (albeit near the end of that supposed dispensation), does not trump this plain meaning. And second, note Jesus does evidently speak of a gathering at the end of all things - there is no hint of a rapture (that is, a gathering prior to the end) here. (I know you acknowledge this, since you contend the rapture is an exclusively Pauline teaching, but I am just being comprehensive in my assessment.)
  
  Turning to Jesus' Olivette Discourse a few pages back, we have Jesus saying the following:
  
  "For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth pangs... Immediately after the suffering of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to another." (Matthew 24:7,29-31, NRSV)
  
  Notice what we have here. First, again the reference is universal, not to Israel: "all the tribes of the earth", the elect gathered "from the four winds, from one end...to another". So, as with Matthew 25:31 onwards, even if dispensationalism is true, the teaching is clearly cross-dispensational. Second, again we have the same elements of Christ's return and a gathering - this time, a gathering of the elect, implying a distinction between saved and unsaved, which implies judgement. In other words, judgement is implicitly present here as well. Third, we have a new element: tribulation. Interestingly, the return and the gathering are after the tribulation. They also mark the end of all things, or at least the end of Jesus' story - again, there is no hint of a pre-end rapture. Also note the references to angels (same as the Matthew 25 passage noted above) and the symbol/image of a trumpet call (more on this below). In short, it is most reasonable to conclude that here Jesus refers to the same general eschaton as in Matthew 25, which is of universal scope, and which is devoid of any rapture.



• Moving to John's witness in Revelation: of course there is a great deal on tribulation, so let's skip to Revelation 19:11 and onwards, all of it situated to immediately follow the tribulation. It is too much to quote it all here, so I will summarize: first John sees the return of Christ (not identified as such, but the symbolism is clear), then the defeat of the beast and his followers, then the millenium, next a second and final conquest of a different set of evildoers (including the devil), and then - only then - universal gathering and judgement:
  
  "Then I saw a great white throne and the one who sat on it; the earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books. And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and all were judged according to what they had done." (Revelation 20:11-13, NRSV)
  
  Only Revelation has the element of millenium (nowhere else in the Bible is it found), but otherwise note the similarity with what Jesus said. We have a return of Christ (accompanied by angels, "the armies of heaven", same as in the Matthew passages), followed (eventually) by a gathering and judgement. And the gathering/judgement is not limited to any one people group but simply includes "the dead" - evidently all of them. After the gathering and judgement is the end (the new creation).
  
  So in Revelation, John gives us a universal gathering and judgement at the end of days, after the tribulation, and with no prior gathering reported. This is consistent with the Jesus tradition reported in Matthew's (and the other gospels), as we saw above (except for the interesting addition of a millenium and a second, final victory over evil). Interestingly, though Jesus was speaking to Jews in, ostensibly, a dispensation of law, and now John is speaking to Gentiles in, ostensibly, a dispensation of grace, the teaching is the same. Again, even if dispensationalism is granted, the teaching seems to be cross-dispensational.



• Let's now move way back to Daniel 12:1 and onwards, where the first unambiguous, prototypical references to a resurrection and judgement appear in the Bible:
  
  "At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as never occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book. Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. ..." (Daniel 12:1-2, NRSV)
  
  Let's see what we have here. First, a reference is made to "your people", that is, the people of Israel. But this reference, supposedly made within the dispensation of law prior to Paul's dispensation, refers merely to some sort of deliverance for Israel. It does not serve to limit the scope of the surrounding context. Second, moving to that surrounding context, we find the same eschatological elements as in the other, later, passages: tribulation, gathering (resurrection), and judgement. Note even the commonality of "book" imagery between Daniel and Revelation. It is thus more natural to see Daniel 12 as a reference to the same general eschatological events as later biblical references specifically apply universally, than as a distinct event involving Israel only and yet coincidentally sharing all the same characteristics.

• In 1 Corinthians 15 we have this from Paul:
  
  "...for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death...When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:22-26,28, NRSV)
  
  And:
  
  "Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed... When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: 'Death has been swallowed up in victory.'" (1 Corinthians 15:51-52,54, NRSV)
  
  The context in which Paul has been writing is regarding the resurrection of the dead. Here Paul merely relates that just as Christ was raised, so too the saved will be raised "at his coming", and "then comes the end" in which all enemies are destroyed and all things are subjected to God, including death. And when is death destroyed? At the time of the resurrection (verse 54). And when is that? At the time of Christ's coming (verse 22), after which and upon which death and all enemies are destroyed and the end game is immediately reached: God "all in all".
  
  What Paul presents, then, is a picture of Christ's return, gathering (resurrection), the destruction of death and all enemies, and God's final triumph - all at generally the same time: the end of things. Paul is not teaching a gathering to Christ at any time prior to the end, for death is destroyed as are all enemies at the time of the gathering (resurrection), and the gathering does not occur until Christ's return, which is at the end when death and all enemies are destroyed and God is finally triumphant.
  
  What Paul is teaching here, then, is not unique, but is utterly consistent with the extra-Pauline teaching I've already reviewed. Namely, a return of Christ and a universal gathering in which God triumphs with finality, all at the very end of days. Paul even uses the same "trumpet" imagery (verse 52) as Jesus employed in his Olivette Discourse! It is simply far more plain and natural to conclude, then, that Paul is referring to the same eschaton and same catalogue of events here, rather than introducing a new and unique teaching which just happens to share so many features, let alone a teaching of a rapture.
  
  Yes, Paul refers to his teaching (in verse 51) as "a mystery", but this does not mean it is a unique revelation to him - nowhere does he claim that. Rather, by "mystery" he means merely that it (the resurrection when we are gathered to Christ) is an astounding, awe-inspiring and humbling prospect, in which we put on bodies anew which we cannot imagine in this present material world, and which is therefore mysterious to contemplate.



• What then about Paul in 1 Thessalonians?
  
  "For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will be no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words." (1 Thessalonians 4:15-18, NRSV)
  
  Yet again we see the same catalogue of images: the return of Christ, with angels and a trumpet sound, followed by the gathering of the saved to him. There is no reason to suppose this refers to any different event than the final eschaton, which Paul has already taught to the Corinthians and which, as we've seen, itself only echoes what Jesus and others taught, and would continue to teach, throughout scripture. Paul nowhere in context claims this 1 Thessalonians 4 passage to be a unique and exclusive teaching, nor distinguishes it from that eschatological tradition which he has agreed with and taught in 1 Corinthians 15.

quote:

---

Thanks for the updates on the inerrancy bit. You keep suggesting that your general view and my general view are too different so futility seems to be our outcome. But you did not answer my more reasonable response to your less reasonable generalizations. And that is that you still trust God's word, and so do I, so lets just deal specifically with the scripture and go from there. It is easy to generalize; it is hard to avoid specifics, just let the chips fall where they may, stop generalizing and being such a pessimist.

What really matters is what we actually believe about what the bible teaches, and it is hard enough to get you to respond to my first round of scriptures specifically pointing out that the nature of the revelation given to Paul to give to us for this dispensation, was not previously or otherwise revealed until it was given to Paul. PLEASE, FOR GOODNESS SAKES, DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE according to the scripture passages I gave, head on, full thrust, no flinching, give it your best shot, actually do it man, forget the possible struggles and generalizations, open your bible, and just do it.

You did get specific and direct on one issue, bible difficulties encyclopedia. Obviously you think that is somehow bogus. So, please provide a classic or favorite or a handy or any example of why such a work should be viewed with disapproval. Thanks, oh, and if you do not do that, then even as nice as you are, I have little reasonable recourse, but to assume your charge is somewhat inflated.

---

Romans 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,

Ephesians 3:2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you,

1 Corinthians 4:1 Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.

Colossians 1:25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God, 26 the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints.

quote:

---

If we grant, for sake of argument, that dispensationalism is true ((1) namely, that history and scripture teaching is divided into periods, each with a degree of its own revelation not pertinent to the others), (2) then that still does not lead to the conclusion that Paul teaches a rapture, let alone a pre-trib one. Why? (3) Because dispensationalism grants that some teachings are cross-dispensational. (4) When we find teaching within the stories of Abraham or Jesus or Paul - all supposedly in different dispensations (promise, law, grace, according to the common scheme) - we are not entitled to assume the teaching is unique to that dispensation, but are merely open to that possibility if other evidence indicates the teaching is directed solely to people within that dispensation.

---

quote:

---

we are not entitled to assume the teaching is unique to that dispensation, but are merely open to that possibility if other evidence indicates the teaching is directed solely to people within that dispensation. Not being a dispensationalist, of course, I am assuming a viewpoint I don't own in saying this, but I believe what I have said is an accurate characterization of the dispensational interpretive framework nonetheless.

---

quote:

---

So what evidence is there, then, that eschatological "gathering" references from Paul refer to a different audience, and thus a different event, than similar references from, say, Jesus, John of Patmos, and the author of Daniel 12? Slim to none, in my judgement. Let's start by assessing the non-Pauline sources I just mentioned, so we will have something to compare Paul against.

---

quote:

---

Square one again... Ok, at least I am used to this territory...

---

quote:

---

When I say to you, that God's word says that
this dispensation that we are currently living in, was kept hidden in God and then given specifically to Paul, and that it was given through revelation that was not otherwise revealed,
specifically concerning the note about the unique revelation, why do you never answer that bible observation? And if you have a response to it, please offer it for my thoughtful consideration.
...

---

• that nowhere does Paul say his new revelation includes all his teaching or at least his end-times teaching specifically;


• nowhere does Paul say that his end-times teaching is distinct and in addition to, or contravention of, prior end-times teaching, nor does he say it is for his current dispensation only;


• instead Paul in some places specifically says what new revelation he has regards something else entirely (salvation of the Gentiles, for example); and


• in fact Paul's end-times teaching, like many of his other teachings (eg on the nature of God and sin and so forth), bears great similarity to consistent extra-Pauline tradition.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1way

Scott - Please go back to the last part of our discussion where I responded directly to your responses, and you stopped making direct responses. Specifically my last 4 points from the previous post, 2 posts ago, the one with the 4 points called out.
...

---

quote:

---

2 Thess. 2:6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming.

No time-frame with regard to the pre-, post-, mid, or ANY theory of the precise timing of the catching away of the saints (which all truly orthodox Christians believe will happen, whatever their eschatology) is referred to in the 2 Thess. passage above. Just like 1 Thess. 4, this passage fits ANY eschatological theory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scott_jorgenson

Hi John,

You said in part:

quote:

---

2 Thess. 2:6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming.

No time-frame with regard to the pre-, post-, mid, or ANY theory of the precise timing of the catching away of the saints (which all truly orthodox Christians believe will happen, whatever their eschatology) is referred to in the 2 Thess. passage above. Just like 1 Thess. 4, this passage fits ANY eschatological theory.

---

Well, verse 8 says that the "lawless one", instigator of what we traditionally identify as the tribulation, is destroyed at Christ's return. Perhaps its a stretch to connect this with 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-54, where Paul associates Christ's return with the gathering of the saints, but the topical relatedness makes me think not. Paul seems to think the gathering of the saints will happen at Christ's return, which will happen after the tribulation - namely, at the end of time when God is made "all in all" (since Paul makes no mention of any sort of millenium coming in between the parousia and the eschaton - only John of Patmos mentions that).

---