Topic: Dispensationalism & Rapture (Read 3143 times)

Tomtheironmongoose · « **on:** July 08, 2007, 12:55:43 PM »

I am wondering if anynoe can help me get a better overview of dispensationalism and rapture. I dont believe in either of them, but I would like to know more.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #1 on:** July 08, 2007, 01:16:58 PM »

Joel is going to be your man on dispensationalism. To be honest, I don't know where people are with the rapture. It doesn't come up nearly as much as I would expect. I also don't buy into either of them in their normal formulations. I am at this time an amillenialist, though I wouldn't say that I've invested the same kind of research into it as I have other areas of doctrine. I'll be interested in seeing who steps in here to address your questions.

Tomtheironmongoose · « **Reply #2 on:** July 08, 2007, 01:34:51 PM »

Personnally, I err on a modified form of postmillenialism and covenant theology. I dont know the appeal of it in particular but if anyone knows the facts on it, I would be interested in knowing more on it.

luvmaybe · « **Reply #3 on:** July 10, 2007, 01:27:16 PM »

:D I would like to know what others are saying regarding the second coming, because many believers are thinking that others will be left behind smiling

Zagzagel · « **Reply #4 on:** July 10, 2007, 10:44:09 PM »

Tony would be another advocate for dispensationalism. I've already made earlier statements on why I hate that doctrine, and why I think it's dangerous.

Happy hunting.

Joel · « **Reply #5 on:** July 11, 2007, 05:46:21 PM »

dangerous? LOL!!! YOU are dispensational zag, or you would still be following the Law.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #6 on:** July 11, 2007, 05:47:15 PM »

Note: The "Tony" I mentioned would be Tony N.

Just another comment to the second part of the question. I personally don't believe in any physical "rapture". Actually, this was the very first doctrine that I studied many many moons ago, before I left my mother church, and the result was that the idea of a physical taking away of people was not seen in that famous "rapture" scripture". The whole history of the rapture is quite interesting... it still makes for a good study though. :)

Zagzagel · « **Reply #7 on:** July 11, 2007, 05:49:18 PM »

Joel. We had this conversation once or twice before. Somehow you keep believing that I am dispensationist, even when I tell you that I am not!?!

We can go over this again if you want?? haha

Zagzagel · « **Reply #8 on:** July 11, 2007, 06:17:31 PM »

Oh, by the way Joel...

It's been awhile, but if I remember correctly, our talks was not about the "Law".

Every dispensational writer that I've read so far comes to the conclusion that the Church and the believing Jews are two different entities. That is the driving theme of dispensationalism, in my opinion. And that is what I've argued in the past. It simply is not true. The Church is both Jew and Gentile combined. That IS my beef with this doctrine.

There are a great deal of christians out there who think that this is a dangerous theology. And I just happen to agree with what they fear about this system.

Dispensationalists should come back to earth and realize that the whole gospel is ONE body. It is Jew and Gentile called into the fellowship of Jesus, who is our HEAD!! Ever read Ephesians again?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #9 on:** July 11, 2007, 07:51:59 PM »

Joel, I think its fair to say that 'Dispensationalism' represents a specific set of positions, and just because those who dissent more than willingly admit a limited number of things that a dispensationalist might call a dispensation, this is a far cry from the position, which sees a new dispensation behind every corner. :)

Joel · « **Reply #10 on:** July 11, 2007, 08:13:22 PM »

I wouldn't call 7 dispensations ( the most common position) a dispensation around every corner.

And sntjohhny, as much as I like you, and you like me( not saying I don't like you). I don't know why you even bother posting to me the way things went in the past.
Yer just way to over educated and sharp with the tongue for little ol me.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #11 on:** July 11, 2007, 08:26:38 PM »

I understood exactly who you meant when referring to 'sharp' tongues. I'm not really 'bothering' anyway. Our newcomer was looking for someone to give them an overview and I merely pointed in your direction. I don't really have much interest in responding or commenting to you on the subject. You have an opportunity here to present your position to someone without any knowledge of our history on the subject. While it was just banter, I thought I would join in the banter. :)

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #12 on:** July 12, 2007, 06:39:54 AM »

I went to bed and realized you were probably talking about the other thread where I had posted some in response to you. Like Zag, I don't have a huge objection to the notion of dispensationalism, but I do have a problem with tampering with the Gospel. The stakes are quite high on that point, and there is nothing I've said that has been 'sharp' as what that other over-educated git has said- that is Paul, for example in Galatians where he offers eternal condemnation to any who present a different Gospel and at the end of the book, urging dissenters to emasculate themselves. That's something to think about.

Joel · « **Reply #13 on:** July 12, 2007, 02:42:06 PM »

I understand what Paul says about any other gospel sntjohnny. BUT, he said any other gospel than the gospel that we had preached (he and his crony's preached, and remember, he didn't run with Peter and the 11). He even had to make a special trip to tell Peter what he was preaching. Now why would he have to do that if they were all preaching the same thing???

Paul preached Christ crucified, the power of the cross, the gospel of the grace of God, God IN Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. Any other gospel would include the Gospel of the Kingdom, the gospel Peter and the rest were sent out with, back when they had no clue let alone even believe that Christ was gonna be crucified.

The gospel of the kingdom ( Israels promised messianic Kingdom where Christ would rule on the earth) had absolutley nothing in common with the Gospel of Grace.

Now, be honest. If you were preaching these days, would you be telling your congregation about the benefits of the Cross of Christ the good news of Gods matchless grace? Or would you be focused on the promised and prophesied King of Israel that He is the son of God.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #14 on:** July 12, 2007, 03:13:15 PM »

I would preach both. I don't find that Jesus is the son of God, the prophesied King of Israel, to be irrelevant to my faith at all.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #15 on:** July 12, 2007, 03:25:02 PM »

And how about this as a plausible explanation for why Paul went and told Peter what he was preaching- they'd never met before, and all the disciples knew was that Paul was no longer persecuting them? Seems like a very plausible explanation to me. :) One of the chief features of this explanation, besides being completely supported by Scriptures, is that it requires absolutely no doctrinal deviation from the historic Christian church's views as it has absolutely no doctrinal impact. I said it has Scriptural support- try Galatians 1:22

"And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only were hearing it said,

Joel · « **Reply #16 on:** July 12, 2007, 05:20:10 PM »

"I don't find that Jesus is the son of God, the prophesied King of Israel, to be irrelevant to my faith at all."

Me neither, but is that the good news that when one believes brings salvation today?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #17 on:** July 12, 2007, 05:39:33 PM »

Sure. Why on earth would I believe in Jesus at all if I didn't think he was the promised Messiah, promises beginning all the way back to Adam? I fail to see the relevance of your point. How could you possibly distinguish between the two Christs? If I don't believe in a Christ that is the promised Messiah I believe in an entirely different Christ. I would wager that you'd agree with that. Am I wrong?

Joel · « **Reply #18 on:** July 12, 2007, 07:39:35 PM »

"And how about this as a plausible explanation for why Paul went and told Peter what he was preaching- they'd never met before, and all the disciples knew was that Paul was no longer persecuting them? Seems like a very plausible explanation to me. :)"

Possibley the explanation to you, insignificant part of the explanation to me though.

One of the chief features of this explanation, besides being completely supported by Scriptures, is that it requires absolutely no doctrinal deviation from the historic Christian church's views as it has absolutely no doctrinal impact. I said it has Scriptural support- try Galatians 1:22

Building an ark is supported by scripture too, but I doubt you think it will support you or anybody today should one decide to build an ark the next time the Mississippi threatens your part of the country or 40 days and nights of rain is forecast.. Lots of things have scriptural support, but often will not support ones use of it. Trusting in the Historic anythings views is not what we should be trusting in either sntjohnny.

The Gospel Paul preached was not the same he persecuted, and I have scriptural support for that as well..

galatians 1-11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

The gospel Paul preached was unknown to him when he was persecuting the message you say was the same.

And for some scriptural support for Paul preaching one way to the Jews and another to the rest, try......1 Cor:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.

20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

Oh my, this late in the game and Jews Paul went to were still under the law. Do you think Paul had it all wrong and that those Jews he went to were Not under the law? And did you notice, he went to those not under the law as well?

He didn't say they just thought they were under the law either.

Hmmm, what would you like to do now, find some early Historic Christian teachings to use against the scriptures?

Joel · « **Reply #19 on:** July 12, 2007, 07:57:10 PM »

"I fail to see the relevance of your point. How could you possibly distinguish between the two Christs? If I don't believe in a Christ that is the promised Messiah I believe in an entirely different Christ. "

I'll let the apostle Paul answer that one.

2 Cor. 5: 17......Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

In due time, Paul preached the risen saviour only. 1 cor....123But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

1 cor. 2:2-3.......1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Since you say they are preached the same, perhaps you could show me the 12 preaching Christ crucified as GOOD News.

Author Topic: Dispensationalism & Rapture (Read 3143 times)