 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
msekee
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 5/20/2004 12:26 PM (GMT -6) |   | | 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. It stated that St Augustine only wanted the book included in the Bible if it was read symbolically as a struggle between good and evil. It wasn't until the 12th century (according to the article) that an Italian monk reinterpreted it as a prediction of events at the end of time. I've never had the fascination over end times that a lot of people have, and I grew up in a church that was post-trib, so I have always been a little annoyed by people who think the "Left Behind" way of looking at things is the "inspired" way, but I realize that Newsweek is not exactly the best place to learn church history. Any thoughts? | | Back to Top | | |
 |
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 5/21/2004 11:52 AM (GMT -6) | | 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
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/22/2004 6:06 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
msekee
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 5/22/2004 8:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks so much for the info. How could I have been in church all my life and not known there were all these other schools of thought in regard to Revelation? And how can evangelicalism stick so tightly to one interpretation that all others become heresy??
I do have a question about one thing that you said. You mentioned that you are not an "inerrant". I don't quite understand how you can believe the Bible could have errors. Isn't it what we base everything we believe about God on? I've heard people say that the gospels were written by men who were trying to get a new religion off it's feet so they twisted and enhanced the life of Christ, his teachings and his miracles - and especially the resurrection - for that purpose. I would assume that you wouldn't go that far - but once you start questioning the absolute truth of the scripture - where does it end? I realize I'm probably way over my head on this one - but I just had to ask. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/24/2004 3:36 AM (GMT -6) | | As is the case with much of God's Word, the goal is to discern the bigger picture. Revelation's picture is unmistakable: God will win and run the victory march with those who have remained faitful to Him, and the enemy will not only loose but suffer eternal seperation (punishment) from God and His followers. The Christian call, then, is to abide in Him and remain faithfully His, to the end.
If we can at least see that this is the motif of the book, we cannot go too wrong, I would hope, in not worring about exactly how God will bring it all to pass.
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 5/24/2004 7:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Karen,
quote:
Originally posted by msekee
Thanks so much for the info. How could I have been in church all my life and not known there were all these other schools of thought in regard to Revelation?
...
Exactly what I still ask myself, an (almost) 37 year old man who only gradually, starting perhaps 5-10 years ago, began to learn these sorts of things. The diversity of Christian viewpoints on any number of questions, from ethical to doctrinal, is humbling. I suppose we should have figured this all along - did it never occur to us to wonder why there have been literally thousands of different Christian denominations through history, and hundreds extant even today, if everyone did in fact agree on everything? :-)
Some of the responsibility for our ignorance lies at the feet of those who have taught and raised us in the faith. They have by and large failed to educate us in the diversity of the tradition, for whatever reason. Perhaps it was undue conviction, on their part, regarding the criticality of unessential doctrines - leading them into distrust and fear of other views in those areas, heightened by their sense of responsibility in protecting us, their charges, from these other views' "corrosive effects". I don't know.
Some of the responsibility, though, must be laid at the feet of at least some of those with Christian viewpoints other than our own. They've kept quiet, or separated themselves from us (or allowed themselves to be separated from us), perhaps in the interest of simply "keeping of the peace". In particular, I wonder about pastors who've known of these things, even believed some of them, and yet found it safer not to present their congregations with them.
And finally, some of the responsibility must rest with us. Its not as if this diversity lies hidden - it was always there, and I just didn't wake up until recently. It is sometimes far easier to put on a particular mold and snuggle into it - or let it be put on us - rather than look to see what other people are doing.
quote:
I do have a question about one thing that you said. You mentioned that you are not an "inerrant". I don't quite understand how you can believe the Bible could have errors. Isn't it what we base everything we believe about God on?
...
It all depends on what we mean by "errors". At the lowest level, correspondence, an error is anything which is not in fact so, ie, which does not in fact correspond directly with reality. Thus "2 + 2 = 5" is an error because 2 and 2 do not, in reality, make 5. The most immediate and obvious impulse is to use this definition of "error" when considering the question of biblical inerrancy, and indeed many theological conservatives do just that. It seems so simple - "of course that is what an error is" - and so that is the standard against which the Bible must be affirmed. However, the problem with the correspondence view is that it presumes a very particular context: the critical/analytical. It rapidly becomes absurd to apply the correspondence standard to things which don't conform themselves to that context - we end up being forced to say preposterous things, such as that C. S. Lewis' Narnia books are "errors" because they do not directly reflect reality.
The broader and more accurate standard for assessing errors, then, must be intentionalist aka contextual (I suppose there is a difference between the two, but I'm not that interested in nuances :-). It has to take into consideration, not just the thing itself, but the context in which it is embedded. So, with an intentionalist or contextual understanding of truth and error, we can say the mathematician who writes "2 + 2 = 5" in an instructional arithmetic textbook has probably committed an error - because we can assume so, based not so much on the equation itself, but on the surrounding context in which we find it (the literary genre of "math textbook", written in a modern age when math textbooks are supposed to do only one thing: teach accurate math). But when Lewis writes about Aslan and talking beavers and what-not, with an intentionalist/contextual view we can say he has not committed an error - because the statements themselves (which do not correspond to reality) are subordinated to the surrounding context, and the clues from that context (the literary genre of "novel") suggest that the text is not intending to give truth in a critical/analytical manner in the first place. Indeed, knowing what we do from other sources about novels in the modern age, we can know that novels do often purport to, not just entertain, but educate in various worldview principles we call "themes". And so, based on such things as how well the text supports its theme and how convincing we find the theme based on other sources as well, we can even say that Lewis' work contains, not error, but truth.
It is this intentionalist/contextual view, not the simplistic correspondence view, which makes the most sense when assessing the truth or falsity of any statement. And when we apply it to the Bible, I believe we find no error in it. Meaning: that the Bible contains nothing that God does not intend for it to humanity's benefit in all our contexts. There is nothing in scripture that God cringes over and wishes weren't there :-) but rather everything in scripture is there for an edifying purpose.
But sadly, when people rally behind "inerrancy" these days, they are generally not allowing the intentionalist/contextual definition of error into their camp. They feel it is too subjective, and to a certain degree they are right. Now, it is not totally subjective to extrapolate Lewis' theme from his Narnia books, for example - no one would say that Lewis teaches nihilism or existentialism in the Narnia Chronicles, so that proves there is objectivity involved when discerning truth in a way that takes intention into account! But still, everyone would admit it is a fuzzier matter than simply matching-up literally-interpreted claims to reality, such as we do when assessing "2 + 2 = 5". And so many people are uncomfortable with, and fearful of, acknowledging anything more than a correspondence view of truth and error, especially in something so important as the Bible. Those who, these days, own the term "inerrancy" are among them.
So when I say I am not inerrantist, I mean that, though I find no intentionalist/contextual error in scripture, I do find what, in my opinion, based on convergence of evidence and induction to the best inference, does constitute correspondence "error". These include internal inconsistencies in literal detail - such as any number of discrepancies between the Gospels as history - as well as literal details counter to external fact - such as the ancient-near-eastern flat-earth, domed-sky cosmology of Genesis and elsewhere. They even, in my opinion, include literal approximations, inconsistencies and imperfections of theology, faith, and practice (see Psalm 137 for example), as God's ways were only slowly and progressively revealed over the ages, always pointing toward and culminating in Christ as the only norm. Seen as simple statements of correspondence, these must be considered errors of various kinds. But seen in light of intention and context - ie, what we know about ancient culture, forms of ancient literature, and especially what we know about God's redemptive focus and kenotic ways of working in the world - they are all understandable.
Hope this helps,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
msekee
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 5/24/2004 3:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks so much for taking the time to answer my questions. I understand what you are saying about inerrancy even if I'm not sure if I totally agree. I know that it's always seemed odd to me that Matthew's geneology of Christ is missing some generations. The explaination given in my commentaries is a little lacking: "Perhaps Matthew is trying to use the common middle eastern practice of numeration in using groups of seven". I've also recently been quite surprised and annoyed by people who stand on passages such as Psalm 139 or some of the Proverbs to back up their theology stating that these are more "teaching" passages than the narrative sections of Genesis. If that were true - then half the Proverbs would be errors. How many good people do you know that have died far too young? How many evil and foolish people do you know that live a good long life? So I definitely see your point.
I agree whole-heartedly with your assesment of why we didn't know about the diversity of our faith. I do believe that the church leaders thought their wisdom was superior and were trying to protect us from the confusion of the other views thinking that we could lose our faith altogether upon being presented with other views. Strangely, it has been upon discovering these other views that I have realized an excitement for studying the Bible and church history that I have never had before. Unfortunately, my husband and I thought we would share this excitement with our youth group - and now my husband has resigned from this church. They couldn't deal with their young people being trained to think on their own. They wanted them to be taught what to think. We were treated like we were trying to make the young people into Mormons or something. It seems that evangelicalism is becoming more and more closed minded all the time. And therefore, less and less effective.
thanks again for your informative reply. I really appreciate it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PhilTheThrill
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 95
| Posted 5/25/2004 5:30 AM (GMT -6) | | | I'm just registering my vote as a preterist, specifically an Amillenial. I've studied this topic for years and years and I find the "LaHaye" interpretation just falls flat, in my eyes. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/25/2004 7:31 AM (GMT -6) | | I think it should be noted that a lot of the apocalyptic writings in the days of old were in view of preserving one's neck; one just didn't come out and call the Emperor a mult-horned beast. Further, the concept of imagery and symbolism created a strong visual of the political and religious points to be made.
The difference with Revelation, however, is that John wasn't trying to get around the issues; he was reporting what Jesus Christ gave him personally, and through His angel(s), in order to talk about the kingdom of God ultimately triumphing over the kingdom of darkeness. He was very straight forward (all this, of course, assuming that one accepts Johannine authorship and the purpose of his writing as I have annotated it).
There is little, if any, room to attribute a motive to John's revelations other than the one he himself gives: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . ." The account reads as one who is reporting what he saw without having constructing a motive and without having created the material. We are obliged to receive the information the author has given us for the exact reasons the author states. Further, that the book was not recognized as Scripture early on is because the church was unsure as to how to interpret the book. What's new!
We may have our difficulties in understanding the Revelation, but I do not see any reason thereof to position the book into a context other than the one in which is solidly rests.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 5/26/2004 10:48 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by msekee
Thanks so much for taking the time to answer my questions. I understand what you are saying about inerrancy even if I'm not sure if I totally agree...Strangely, it has been upon discovering these other views that I have realized an excitement for studying the Bible and church history that I have never had before. Unfortunately, my husband and I thought we would share this excitement with our youth group - and now my husband has resigned from this church.
Ditto about the excitement I too have for Bible study now I know it is not a cut-and-dried matter. I am sorry to hear that your husband's appointment in the church did not work out, and for contentious reasons. I remember you posting about this before it was a done deal, some months ago. In any case, that it all came to a head so quickly is probably for the best, as it does not sound like it was the kind of environment where he could have best served anyway. All the best,
Scott | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 5/26/2004 10:53 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
I think it should be noted that a lot of the apocalyptic writings in the days of old were in view of preserving one's neck...The difference with Revelation, however, is that John wasn't trying to get around the issues; he was reporting what Jesus Christ gave him personally, and through His angel(s), in order to talk about the kingdom of God ultimately triumphing over the kingdom of darkeness. He was very straight forward...
Hi Keith. You are a braver man than I, if you consider Revelation to be "very straightforward" :-)
In any case, I don't really have any quarrel with what you say, since I find it is compatible with any particular view of Revelation, from futurist prophecy to idealist apocalypse. That God inspired Revelation, through a vision John had of Jesus and angels and etc, does not rule out seeing it as an apocalypse or a preterist work or etc. You know how I feel that God's inspiration is compatible with all kinds of human literary forms. Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
msekee
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 5/26/2004 2:31 PM (GMT -6) | | | All I know is that I am so excited for the first time ever to study Revelation. It's the one book that has not interested me because it seemed that it needed man's interpretation to understand the way it was "meant" to be understood. I've ordered the book on the four views and am eager to read it as well as read the book of Revelation without regard for what interpretation I'm supposed to take from it. I realize that men who have studied the Bible for years have more wisdom than I do about scripture - but it doesn't seem to me that God intended an entire book of the Bible to be so hard to understand that we need scholars to tell us what it means. So thanks again for the info. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/27/2004 2:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Here, here, Scott!
I noted that John was very straight-forward about his reasons for writing (the message of Revelation is pretty straight foward, albeit its sequence is a task); he didn't mask the Revelation in political intrigue or religious motives. He was simply reporting what he was shown. I think that is critical.
For sure, we can't miss the motif of the book in its simplicity: He wins and, therefore, so do we.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 5/27/2004 7:58 AM (GMT -6) | | It is important to understand the dispensation that we live in, and how it was teachings given to Paul not previously revealed prior to trying to figure out end times and eschatology issues.
Pauline mystery teachings were not previously revealed to anyone else
The unique way of faith (dispensation teachings) that we have for today was strictly given to Paul and no where else. So we are living in the dispensation of Grace and Mystery such that our dispensation does not fit in with the rest of biblical prophesy, namely, the end times are not about us at all. The pretrib rapture is also a mystery teaching for this dispensation only, and as such would naturally mark the ending of this dispensation and the beginning of the next, and that is when all this end times eschatology stuff would pick back up right where it was left off as recorded in the book of Acts.
Foundational matters matter
I think everyone here making their the opinions about the end times does not have a valid understanding of the current times we are living in. If you do not understand the nature of this current dispensation, then it is very understandable why you confuse various dispensational differences as though they are the same thing, but they are not.
God's word is not silent on these differences
Please consider the following bible teachings and how they serve well to discredit all but the pretrib rapture eschatology. This is not a vehement defense of the pretrib prewrath rapture, this is simple bible teaching that supports the same.
(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—— (2) This is an amazing teaching for the rapture, and how it actually is that times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth——in Him. Note the special unique idea, that God is mentioning a gathering together of those who are in heaven and which are on earth! This dispensation of the fullness of times is a clear reference to the pretrib rapture, even the name of this dispensation, the fullness of times, shows how seperated it is from the next dispensation, as it is correlated with the rapture event. And how logical and brilliant is that? It only makes perfect sense to start up the next dispensation immediately following the exit of all those who became saved in the previous dispensation, that way it will only be natural to be able to swiftly start up with the next dispensation, which I believe will be picking things up right where the last one left off. (2) Eph 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth——in Him. 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. (3) This is the main feature presentation for the nature of the teachings for this dispensation. It is not according to any other revelation but that which was given to Paul to give to us. Notice, even though it is an uncomfortable idea for most, God through Paul stipulates this new revelation as including the teachings about Christ which are not according to previous revelation, but were first given to Paul. (3) Eph 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles—— 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, 7 of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power. 8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; (4) God through Paul even clarifies that this new message includes the mystery of the gospel. (4) Eph 6:18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints—— 19 and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel,
20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak. (5) In this dispensation, even Paul needed help from God to boldly proclaim the mystery of Christ as he aught to make it manifest. This issue can get somewhat complicated, and I think is largely what the circumcision crowd meant by describing Paul's writings as being sometimes difficult to understand. (5) Col 4:3 meanwhile praying also for us, that God would open to us a door for the word, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in chains, 4 that I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak. (6) The following should be a real eye opener for folks who do not consider Paul this way, and also for those who do not understand how it is that God is lumping together in like mannor the various mystery teachings, namely that these mystery teaching from the dispensation of grace and mystery are NOT according to other revelation than what was specifically given to Paul. (6) 1Co 4:1 Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. (7) Lastly, I offer to you the mystery teaching of the pretrib rapture, which as a mystery teaching under Paul's dispensation of Grace and mystery and the fullness of times, means you can not use other revelation from God and connect then together as though they are one and the same, if they were the same message, then the teaching was not first or specifically given to Paul, it was given elsewhere and that is a direct violation of so many teachings that clearly state that Paul's mystery teachings were not given to other men, it was specifically given to Paul, and not before him. (7) 1Co 15:51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed—— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. (8.) That mystery teaching (not otherwise revealed until given to Paul) is the rapture of the saints who will all meet with Jesus in the air, all who are in heaven and earth will gather together in Him just as Eph 1 and the dispensation of the fullness of times indicates, the dead in Christ will rise first, and the we who are alive will follow right after them. See next passage for more on that ordering. (8.) 1Th 4:13 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words. And so we see that our gathering together in Christ will have a specific order and that this rapture teaching of gathering heaven and earth to Christ represents a comforting message which is yet another indicator that we will not go through the tribulation period, we will be spared all that trouble, as it says elsewhere, we (those in the body of Christ) are not appointed to wrath.
(9) But Israel will be chastened through trials as through a refining process to prepair her for service for the Lord, and ultimately to become a fit suitor for the marriage supper of the Lamb, spoken of in Rev 19:9. The end times of trials and tribulation has another name, it's called Jabob's trouble, (9) Jer 30:7 Alas! For that day [is] great, So that none [is] like it; And it [is] the time of Jacob’s trouble, But he shall be saved out of it. (10) and of course, at one very wise and insightful time, God changed Jacob's name to "Israel"! And although God depicts lots of trials and trouble for Israel, God named Jacob Israel in a very optimistic way, pointing to God's desire or intention that Israel struggles with God and ends up winning. (10) Ge 32:28 And He said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed." God is saying that this great day, the end times trials and tribulation, is "Israel's" time of trouble, and He has only good expectations that she will do well in the end, He even had to cause Jacob/Israel some divinely caused discomfort (disjointed his hip socket, yet he wrestled God through the divinely caused trouble) right before the struggle's end, and it was only upon him prevailing through that struggle with God, that God then blessed "Israel", the parallels are deep and amazing, God is good.
The end times are not for us in the body of Christ, it is for the chastening and refining of "Israel" and is the focus of the vast majority of prophetic scripture, save the unique teachings for our current dispensation. You should not make the same, what God made different. The rapture of the saints from this dispensation marks the fullness of times and is not according to any other revelation than that which was specifically give from God to Paul to give to us, and it is by specifically reading his writings that we rightly learn to understand these mysteries!
"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 5/27/2004 8:33 AM (GMT -6) | | It's nice to be back after a three year absence. I lost my job and perhaps career as a truck driver after having an accident that tipped over the entire truck and trailer. No personal injuries other than a dull but fairly consistent backache. And I am technically eligible to drive again, but the insurance liability issue pretty much is a stopper for the next 3 years on average, depends upon the insurance companies liability guidelines and such.
Not just the words going out, but the response to each other
I'm looking forward to more discussions with you folks, and may your "hearing" as well as my "words" be baptized in the Love of God (thanks to Mr. Boyd), which is not "always" a nice and politically correct issue (thank God). I offer likely more easy going discussions from my end, I seek to diminish and yet also correct offenses, and this time, where there is doubt or confusion, to walk more softly.
I made mistakes
I apologize to the extent that I was not being so considerate from my last engagement here. I was touchy. I think I was partially right for taking some offense at some things that I did, but overall I could have handled it better.
Mr Boyd and posters from back then
So I hope to enjoy my stay better this time around, and I hope that your response to me will also be as brotherly and enjoyable. Especially the following thoughts are towards Mr Boyd. I was wrong for seeing some sort of animosity (however implied) where perhaps none existed at all. I hope Mr. Boyd understood my desire to be set straight on matters that although he felt were not very important, yet I still feel are important. I can and may learn where ever I go, and he need not correct me on anything, so I needed not impose my (hopeful) expectations to do so upon him as I did. Mr. Boyd and all others who feel I treated them similarly, I hope you accept this offer towards amends. It was a mix of good intentions and inappropriate expectations. I'm sorry for difficulty or confusion that apparently caused.
This thread seems out of place
I think the theology Q&A would be better. Perhaps an admin or moderator could relocate this thread and leave a notice here about the sudden relocation so that everyone can find this thread again. 
"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 5/27/2004 12:28 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by 1way
...
I think everyone here making their the opinions about the end times does not have a valid understanding of the current times we are living in. If you do not understand the nature of this current dispensation, then it is very understandable why you confuse various dispensational differences as though they are the same thing, but they are not.
...
Please consider the following bible teachings and how they serve well to discredit all but the pretrib rapture eschatology. This is not a vehement defense of the pretrib prewrath rapture, this is simple bible teaching that supports the same.
Actually, even within the confines of literalism and inerrancy, I humbly submit that scripture nowhere plainly teaches the rapture (defined as a gathering of the saved to Jesus while the rest are left behind though not yet judged), let alone a pre-tribulation rapture.
In Paul's passages to the Thessalonians and Corinthians that were quoted, he simply speaks of the resurrection of the dead and the consummation of all things in Christ, which he generally situates at the end of days without being more specific. If anything, the passages that were quoted regard events Paul simply situates at the very end of all things - in 1 Corinthians 15, after all, Paul plainly says that the gathering of the saints occurs "at the last trumpet" (verse 52) and that when it happens death will have been swallowed-up (verse 54), death being the last enemy to be destroyed (verse 26) before God is all-in-all (verse 28), the very end. Paul seems to be speaking of an event at the very end and not an event some time prior to it (eg, a pre-trib rapture). Note also that Paul makes mention of no other popular elements in futurist/dispensationalist eschatology, such as a tribulation or a millenial rule of Christ. It strikes me as sheer eisegesis to insert tribulation or millenium into these passages in order to infer a pre-trib (or mid-trib or post-trib) timing for a rapture that seems not to be there in the first place.
In fact, in my opinion Paul does not even seem to be speaking of a rapture at all - ie, an event in which the saved are taken and the rest are left behind for later judgement. He rather seems to just be speaking of certain aspects of the general eschaton as it is consistently viewed through all scripture from Daniel onwards: resurrection of all, with immediate judgement to salvation or condemnation. It is worth noting too that neither Revelation nor Jesus' Olivette Discourse - which do plainly speak of tribulation - make any mention of a rapture, though both include the final resurrection and judgement, as I just mentioned is consistent throughout later scripture. Consequently, I conclude scripture nowhere teaches a rapture of believers, let alone its timing.
Furthermore, I would suggest that the data given us in scripture is insufficient for us to make any specific prediction about the end, other than the general resurrection and judgement that is consistently portrayed throughout. We simply cannot be sure about tribulation and millenium and rapture and final battle and new creation and so forth because there is no one passage in scripture where all these elements are taught in an abstract critical manner. Rather, wherever the end is addressed, it is addressed only partially, and usually in the language of apocalypse, which is a literary form of the time intended to evoke emotion, not yield data. We know this from all the other apocryphal apocalypses (Enoch, etc) popular at the time. And we also know it from the Bible itself - see Isaiah 34, for example, in which a prophecy of the destruction of Edom is dressed in apocalyptic imagery:
"All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved
and the sky rolled up like a scroll;
all the starry host will fall
like withered leaves from the vine,
like shriveled figs from the fig tree.
My sword has drunk its fill in the heavens;
see, it descends in judgment on Edom..." (Isaiah 34:4-5, NIV)
The fact the skies are still with us, though Edom is not, suggests that these apocalyptic references are poetic language, not literal description - a conclusion precisely in line with our understanding of what the apocalyptic genre was all about.
So when we see scripture making use of apocalyptic imagery I do not feel we have warrant, let alone requirement, to take it literally. What we can take from it is the visceral impact of the language and the message that impact gets across: that this world will come to an end sometime somehow, we will be with God in some way, and in some manner God will be all-in-all.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/27/2004 1:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott...
You...you don't believe...that the skys will roll up?  ???
I'm totally flabergasted...that you do not believe that...
No rolling skys? And I was so looking foward to watching it all get rolled up like a scroll. What a drag! You've ruined everything! 
Hey, this is a good article to check out:
http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/books/rev/rapture.htm.
Michael J. Svigel has written a pretty provocative piece here, and it really gets to the heart of the matter at about half way through his work: "The Rapture In Revelation 12:5"
His theory is that the only real place in Revelation where the rapture (though not stated in those terms) is clear is in Revelation 12--the manchild "caught up" to heaven; the manchild being more than just Jesus: the church included. Interesting and well written.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 5/27/2004 2:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott - I did not set out to establish the pretrib rapture. It is there, but you are not addressing my entire train of thought that I conveyed. It was over the nature of this dispensation. You even quoted me explaining my intentions, and then you went about ignoring it and instead focusing on the rapture.
If you do not understand nor rightly teach the mystery nature of our current dispensation, then you have no solid foundation for which to judge matters that are for this or that dispensation. I do agree that Paul spoke of the rapture in sometimes very broad terms. quote:
the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ
You say that has nothing to do with the pretrib rapture. Ok, then if you want to place that at the very end of human history, then you are still stuck with the fact that God was clear that this mystery teaching was NOT according to any other revelation, it is according to only that which was given to Paul. And Paul's other accounts about the rapture place it prior to the commencement of the tribulation, which is far from the end of this present heaven and earth. That's the 2Thes2 passage.
Please, I offered you like a dozen bible passages that altogether make a very forceful account that denies all these other eschatologies from the get go. You are left with the pretrib rapture as the end of this dispensation and the beginning of the next.
You said quote:
Actually, even within the confines of literalism and inerrancy, I humbly submit that scripture nowhere plainly teaches the rapture (defined as a gathering of the saved to Jesus while the rest are left behind though not yet judged), let alone a pre-tribulation rapture.
That seems absurd, after taking only the saved people to Christ, the only people left will be the unsaved. There seems to be no other reasonable alternative. You might want to mix this teaching in with the next dispensation, but Paul does not teach that our dispensation ends at the end of the end times when it is all wrapped up and we have the new heaven and the new earth, etc. I suggest that the main reason you are wanting to insert that idea into Paul's eschatology, is because you are not differentiating between him and what the circumcision says will happen in the end times.
Please reconsider what you quoted and God's word presented for your careful review. And if you keep avoiding these passages, don't forget, copy and paste works wonders to refresh people's memories of what was actually placed before you. 
"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 5/27/2004 2:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott - You said quote:
Actually, even within the confines of literalism and inerrancy,
I quoted God's word as though it should be sufficient and authoritative over these matters, and your first remarks are to overlook "literalism and inerrancy", as though they were at issue.
Sounds like a soft confession that you're a liberal who opposes literal interpreted as a primary precept and that God's word is fundamentally without error. Because language is primarily literal, it is universally accepted to seek the literal interpretation first, and to generally accept that understanding unless the literal causes some sort of interpretational problem. As to inerrancy, do you think that God made a mistake by trusting man's part in creating scripture? Or was it a huge demonstration of His brilliance, that even though God used mere fallible men, He was still able to author the scriptures and man was subject and inferior to God, not the other way around. It's funny, we say that we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us, but when it comes to God doing what He wants to do through us, He is not as capable as we are. God is more capable than we are, His word is true and righteous and good, it lacks no amount of correctness if you accept God at His word, spare the false translations and all that. If we do not really have God's word, then how would we ever refute the JW's false translation, nor any other bad translation? We would always be stuck saying, it might be right, it might be wrong, who can tell for sure. God says His word will not pass away, not one jot nor tittle, and I accept God at His word. God is good and wise, He did not make a mistake by creating scripture through men moved/directed by God.
"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/28/2004 1:26 AM (GMT -6) | | 1Way,
Well, first, it seems you are the one who's laid a heavy emphasis on the rapture as the topic, though you told Scott that wasn't your point. But to work along the lines of that portion of your post in regard to God having given only Paul the "mystery" revelation, give me a few Scriptures that prove Paul was the only one to get the revelation he received. You might as well not use Scriptures where Paul uses phrases like, "according to my gospel," (Ro 16:25) or "the grace of God which was given to me for you," (Eph 3:1). These verses do not prove that Paul was the only one who got revelation on the mystery of Christ. Just because God did not use other apostles to write about the "mystery" as Paul did does not mean that God had not given them this understanding. (It'd be an argument from silence to conclude otherwise, unless you can give me those specific Scriptures.)
Romans 16:25 has absolutely nothing to do with the rapture. It's a simple benediction.
Eph 1:7-14 has nothing to do with the rapture; it is a statement about the work of God through the Christ, the salvific work, which brings us into Christ. (If one wants to read into "gather together" as the rapture, I'd say the more correct termonology would be "resurrection.")
Eph 3:1? What exactly is your? We know that we are in a "dispensation," if you will, of grace; for the Christ has come and offered Himself up for us all, the mystery of the gospel being Jew and Gentile are "in Him." We all may not be as adamant for dispensationalism as Scofield or Dake (wasn't he a Dispen guy?), but we accept God's work through the Christ, and the results thereof, as something that had never happened before, ushering us into a new eon: the kingdom of God is within you.
As to the rest of the rapture Scriptures...
Better interpreted as the "resurrection" Scriptures. Hey, I believe in the work God brought about through Jesus the Christ, the grace of God given to Paul (and others) to teach the church that she is to ultimately be united and one with Christ forever, Jew and Gentile alike. But are we to hold to the idea that if the rapture came right this very minute, the people who get saved after the rapture--and there will be many, and many will get saved in minutes after it occurs, according to the pre-trib beliefs--are somehow different in their stance as regards the chruch and Christ? They're somehow not quite fully part of the church or the "bride"? What are they then? Half-brothers and half-sisters? No, they're as much a part of the mystery of Christ as anyone else; they have to be: there's only one church. This is difficult to explain from a pre-trib position, because if God raptures the "church" before the tribulation, what about those who get saved just minutes after it occurs? Bastardized children of God to be kept seperated from the full benefits of the raptured church? Nope. That simply doesn't ring with Scripture.
Finally, Scott's point was simply that the concept of the "resurrection" is much more stable than the concept of a pre-trib rapture, or "rapture" of any kind, other than the eschatological resurrection. I agree with him, but that's not to say that I'm not dealing with a few passages about the "rapture" myself. (Right now, I'm working with Luke 17 combined with chapter 21 and Mathew 24. But more on that later.)
Well, I'm outta here until next time.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 5/28/2004 8:00 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by 1way
Scott - I did not set out to establish the pretrib rapture. It is there, but you are not addressing my entire train of thought that I conveyed. It was over the nature of this dispensation. You even quoted me explaining my intentions, and then you went about ignoring it and instead focusing on the rapture.
Yes, I only focused on your comments about the rapture and its pre-trib timing, and I left your comments on this current dispensation and mystery revelation given exclusively to Paul. I see now that I should have explained my silence on those comments of yours - my apologies.
The reason I did not address those comments is because, one, they were not in focus with this thread, which is on eschatology and Revelation, not on dispensational theology in general. I did not wish to digress into a discussion over dispensationalism. (In interest of full disclosure, you should know that I am not a dispensationalist - I do not believe that scripture plainly teaches that all history is broken into discrete and systematic ages in which God deals with humanity in different and non-overlapping ways.) And two, your dispensational comments did not bear on the issue of whether Paul taught a rapture, let alone a pre-trib one. 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.
(Incidentally, note that by rapture is meant a gathering of the saved to Christ prior to the end, so that others - the at-that-time-unsaved - are left behind. I certainly agree that a gathering of the saved to God at the end, where we will be with him forever, is part-and-parcel of Christian eschatology, and that I do not deny; but that is not what the rapture is. 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:
If you do not understand nor rightly teach the mystery nature of our current dispensation, then you have no solid foundation for which to judge matters that are for this or that dispensation.
Anyway, that being your position, I doubt we'll get very far in a common understanding. This is especially true given our likely disagreement over literal inerrancy (see my next response in this thread). That's OK - at least for my part, there's plenty of room in the Christian tent for all of us. Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 5/28/2004 8:12 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by 1way
Sounds like a soft confession that you're a liberal who opposes literal interpreted as a primary precept and that God's word is fundamentally without error.
Yes, I suppose that to you, you could say I am a liberal (though what word do we then use to label people like Elaine Pagels and John Hick who go much further than me and deny the incarnation and resurrection). I do not accept the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as it is most commonly understood today: total consistency, factuality, and historicity of every statement in scripture's "original autographs" when interpreted plainly and literally. I cannot accept this kind of inerrancy, simply because the evidence is against it. If you look earlier in this thread, you'll see where I spent more time answering a question on this.
In any event, my liberalism on inerrancy is a further reason why you and I are unfortunately probably not going to reach a common understanding on such things as the rapture. We simply approach biblical interpretation too differently. But for my part at least that is OK and I welcome you.
Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 5/28/2004 8:17 AM (GMT -6) | | 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
| | Back to Top | | |
| 73 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:45 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|