A Prewrath Rapture question

[iamlamad]

2 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Please keep the posts about the posts and not the posters. 

 

Dispensational Premillennialism has many problems and serious problems, but "hate" is inappropriate. On any occasion when or where Dispensationalism is discussed it is completely understandable why a DPist would feel defensive or attacked BUT if the posts are kept about the posts and the evidence is examined objectively the problems in DPism are apparent. Many of the noted Dispensationalists I have read are aware of these problems, both real and perceived and they attempt an apologetic against their critics. I posted part of one to you when Michael Vlachs was arguing against the criticism DPism teaches a two-pronged salvation. He limited his argument to Calvinism versus Arminianism and missed other aspects of soteriology. He affirmed salvation by grace but ignored the fact Dispensational Premillennialism ALSO says a different path will be necessary for Israel. 

If Dispensationalism is to survive it will have to address these problems in ways that withstand scrutiny. That's true of every theology. It took the Church almost 400 years to formalize core doctrine. Maybe DPism will correct its very real problems both doctrinally and practically. 

 

 

You can certainly agree Christians should stop predicting the future, yes? 

 

You can certainly agree with me (and Vlachs), salvation is by grace through faith and not of ourselves? 

 

So please do not tell me what I do or do not hate. I hate people telling me what I think without asking . If it continues, I will report the post. I believe I stated eariler I wasn't interested in turning your thread into a moratoium on Dispensationalism. This op is about a pre-wrath rapture, and I believe I have provided plenty of reasons - straight out of scriture - for understanding a pre-wrath rapture is not scripturally viable when all of scripture (and not just select verses) is taken as written as a whole. 

Quote

You can certainly agree Christians should stop predicting the future, yes? 

We can predict exactly what the bible predicts, but setting dates is foolishness.

Quote

You can certainly agree with me (and Vlachs), salvation is by grace through faith and not of ourselves? 

By the way, I could say pretty much what you have said (doctrines with holes) about classical pretrib rapture doctrine, the new posttrib prewrath rapture doctrine, and the typical posttrib rapture doctrine. They all have holes.

The Evangelical church of today is split a thousand ways on Doctrine, but as Paul said, Christ is preached, and the church is growing, not shrinking. I can assure you, God is not worried about church doctrine.  However, he established Godly teachers to help keep church doctrine straight. 

Quote

I believe I have provided plenty of reasons - straight out of scriture - for understanding a pre-wrath rapture is not scripturally viable when all of scripture (and not just select verses) is taken as written as a whole. 

I don't believe you have.

WHY would Paul write of the Day of the Lord (a day of wrath) just three verses after His "caught up" verse - if the rapture does not come just before wrath? Why would Paul write  - still in His rapture passage - that God is not going to set any appointments for us with His wrath.

What IS IT you believe? Do you imagine the church must live through God's time of wrath?

[iamlamad]

29 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Did I not read that earlier? And yet over the course of a dozen pages in this op and many more in the other op much agreement was found. 

 

We can certainly agree the last days began in the New Testament era. Yes?

Yes, you are right here.  But a better question is, have we accomplished anything?

Edited March 21, 2022 by iamlamad

[iamlamad]

14 minutes ago, Josheb said:

So please do not tell me what I do or do not hate. I hate people telling me what I think without asking . If it continues, I will report the post. I believe I stated eariler I wasn't interested in turning your thread into a moratoium on Dispensationalism. This op is about a pre-wrath rapture, and I believe I have provided plenty of reasons - straight out of scriture - for understanding a pre-wrath rapture is not scripturally viable when all of scripture (and not just select verses) is taken as written as a whole. 

I started this post with this question:

In prewrath theory, is the coming of Jesus as shown in Revelation 19 the only coming—to include the rapture and Armageddon?

Or is the rapture a separate coming?

If we are accomplishing something by drifting off the OPP, I don't mind. What is funny though is that no one really answered by question.

Just so you know, I wrote a book critiquing Robert Van Kampen's book on the Prewrath rapture, and another book critiquing Rosenthal's Prewrath book. I believe the rapture will come before God's wrath, but I don't believe much else about the classical prewrath theory as presented by Van Kampen and Rosenthal.

I am currently writing a book critiquing a posttrib rapture.

By the way, it is OK to hate a false doctrine. Especially if it is damaging to the church. I am remind of Paul writing that he wished some who were pushing circumcision on his churches, that they would not stop there, but go all the way. 

Perhaps "hate" was a poor choice of words. But I took notice on how you pounced on that subject.

[iamlamad]

43 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Brother, I'm just going to have you look at your own post. 

 

There is no mention of a "Church age" in any of what was just posted. There is no word "church" in Ephesians 3:2. The word "dispensation" certainly does occur and at no point anywhere in any forum will you ever find me disputing that fact. What is NOT there is the word "church" or the word "age". Neither word is there. Those two words have to be read into the text n order to make that about a "church age". AND in order for that dispensation of grace to be treated as something, new, something different then three more things must be read into the verse AND one must ignore all the mentions and allusions to grace found throughout the Bible going back to Ezra. 

Ezra 9:8
"But now for a brief moment grace has been shown from the LORD our God, to leave us an escaped remnant and to give us a peg in His holy place, that our God may enlighten our eyes and grant us a little reviving in our bondage."

 hmmm.... I wonder if that mention of "remnant" is relevant. Even if it is not it is clear grace has been expressed by God from the beginning. Paul did NOT say the "dispensation of grace given me" was new or different. For all we know from that sentence, from the paragraph in which that paragraph occurs that dispensation could have been given to many others and not just Paul, I could have been given long ago and a dispensation that has run through many eras, many generations. 

There is no mention of "church age" in Ephesians 3:2. 

And neither will the phrase be found anywhere in the Bible. 

Someone who studies the Bible knows that. Someone who does not follow Darby and studies the Bible knows this. 

Please keep this about the posts and not the posters. 

I do understand what is stated. Paul was given a dispensation. Paul was not given a Church age. That is Dispensational Premillennialism, not the Bible. 

 

Study the Bible. 
 

 

[iamlamad]

Just now, iamlamad said:

I do understand what is stated. Paul was given a dispensation. Paul was not given a Church age. That is Dispensational Premillennialism, not the Bible. 

Now I will have to wonder why you dislike the word AGE. 

2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

 

Paul is saying that the dispensation given to him for the Gentiles is a age. 

Age is not a bad word. Webster's "a period in history or human progress"

We are living therefore in an "age." It is, without any shadow of doubt, the same dispensation Paul started. 

[iamlamad]

5 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Please keep the posts about the posts and not the posters. 

The posts show inconsistencies between the Bible's statements and the posts' statements.

I would reword that sentence: The posts show inconsistencies between HOW I READ the Bible's statements and the posts' statements.

[iamlamad]

7 minutes ago, Josheb said:

It cannot, for example, be said the seals are both sealed and unsealed at the same time. Yet that is what was posted.

Here is yet another hole in your statement. You are simply wrong.

A seal can be opened IN A PROPHECY of the future, but still be sealed in reality.
 

This is the case of seals 6 and 7.

[iamlamad]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Please keep the posts about the posts, and not the posters.  

 

I do nto dislike the word "age". I don't dislike any word or words. 

Your comments tell me something different. You apparently don't believe in ages or even the age we are in. Paul shows us that is "Dispensation" was an "age." You keep talking about taking scripture literally for what it actually says. 

I think we are in a dispensation of grace.  Your doubting this will not make it untrue. 

If I am mistaken, I wlll look you up in heaven and tell you I was wrong. 

[iamlamad]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

 Unless it is your false doctrine . 

 

There are very real problems with DPism. One of them is that it creates Van Kampens, Rosenthals, LaHayes, Lindsays, Campings, and Hagees. 

Yes, it is. 

And there are no "buts" when it comes to making it about the poster. Keep the posts about the posts and not the posters and we won't have much problem. We may disagree, but it'll be respectful. 

 

And hopefully topical  

UNLESS Pretribulation premillennialism is the way God sees it.  

What if it is true?

WILL Jesus come pretrib for His church? 
WILL there be a 1000 year reign of Christ following the 70th week? 

I believe YES to both questions, NOT because I am something or other, but because I see these things in the world of God.

There are always words about  taking scripture literally: do you take Revelation 20 literally?  I do. John is very literal in talking about the 1000 years. 

[iamlamad]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

I do. 

I did. 

Please, answer it again?

In prewrath theory, is the coming of Jesus as shown in Revelation 19 the only coming—to include the rapture and Armageddon?

(Saying prewrath is wrong does not answer this question.)

I THINK they believe in only one more coming. But I wanted to hear this confirmed from a bona fide prewrather.

Wait: your answer won't count: you don't believe in a prewrath rapture.