Dangers of Dispensational Rapture Fantasy

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
I prefer to think of Christians as like Noah. Go out and invite everyone onto the boat. It's up to them whether or not they get on.
 

geralduk

New member
Originally posted by csmuda

You go geralduk.
so much division seen in the Christianity of the world. so many denominations and divisions. yet in the church epistles we are strongly asked to think one thing and be of one mind. So all the 1000+ denominations might think that they, and they alone, hold the key to "the whole truth" or the like. so many fundamentalists get their flock all hepped up on their own little slant without any shred of church history. How many of us are versed in the main reason for Luther and Calvin's disagreement?

A whole understanding of the history of christian eschatology will force the student to acknowledge that "rapture" is only 160 years old compared to 2000 years of church thought. Granted the many a-sides in the Faith had many people waiting on some hill top for the event and nothing happened.

I've never ever understood why in Christianity I have to choose between my brain and my heart.

the danger of dispensationalism is the Christian doesn't care about the world around her. why should she? it's hopeless. When I was excited about all this I was even more excited about learning how brothers-and-sisters thought about these things in the different centuries.

300 hundred years ago Christians in america really really thought that america was central to God's plans. They thought that from America the Word would sound out over the planet and the spread of God's Kingdom would move out and make the world new again. They were as passionate as present day dispensationalists. How can truth evolve like that? Only by not looking at it can we pretend this reinvention is not so. That's the danger: ignorance and passion mixed. :nono:

The birth of the church was b rought into being at its BAPTISM of the HOLY GHOST.
it then sprung up and then was persecuted then blessed by the world and evntualy that seed fell into the ground and died.
Alebit there was a REMNANT left as a witness.
Untill the reformation that "seed" laid dormant.
Then in die time the light dawned on a greman monk that the "just hsall live by faith"
It was not a new thing but an old truth revitalised by the HOLY SPIRIT.
That new shoot had still earth clinging to it.
so to did LUTHOR.
But when God sought to go " a little further"
Those having got THAT revalation though it was ALL the revaltion.
and so built thier wall around it .
Calvin got more but when God moved on many didnt.
BAPTISTS got more light but they too stayed when God moved on.
Weslyians then broiught more light for the 'present' church had the Lord OUTSIDE the door trying to get in.
But trhere too in time God moved and they stayed.
and so on and so on.
pentecsostals also got light but have made thier 'light' the be all and end all.
Evangelicals also.
Each 'defending' thier 'patch' but forgetting that it is GOD who is the HEAD and they are but MEMBERS.
and that EACH PART is but that a PART of the WHOLE.
wE ARE OF COURSE TALKING ABOUT THOSE "SOUND DCOTRINS" of scripture.
But even as it was the HOLY SPIRIT who had QUICKNED to them and enlightened them concerning the Word.
and had in the time it was given ENABLED them to preach it against all oposition.
So now in the main they DENY Him in truth for they boast in the scriuptures and thier doctrins.
But have forgotten of whom they SPEAK of.
Thus while each denomination will not acknowldge the truth as to thier need of Him and are willing to open the door to Him.
They are growing CORRUPT and death is slowly creaping in even as the world is.
The church is in a BAD WAY and judgement is hovering over it even as it was over ISREAL.
For in its own eyes "it has need of nothing"
But in Gods.........


The WHOLE truth is in "(listen) ALL the scriptures which were given for............."
The question is will the church swallow the WHOLE pill OR ONLY THOSE BITS WHICH 'fit' ITS 'SCHOOL' OF THEOLOGY.

It matters not that the 'rapture' is only (so it is thought) 160 years old.
According to THAT reasoning LUTHOR was wrong and ROME was right!
The TRUTH "liveth and abideth forver"
Just because men hjave not 'seen' it "untill now" does not mean it has no validity.
That mystery that Paul preached that was 'hiddeen' untill now.
is CLEARLY seen (now) in ALL the scriptures!
yet was hidden for 4000 years!
are we then to dismiss that truth just because PAUL first understood the mystery?
and not THOSE OF LONG AGO?
The 'rapture' or more accurately the "TRANSLATION"(SEE ENOCH)
is provable or tested by the scriptures.
Not so much by 'proof texts' for the scripturs do not encourage such things but rather by BIBLICAL 'arguement' (see the leters of hebrews and romans.)
You may have a text that 'CLEARLY states a doctrin.
nevertheless to 'prove it needs more than one or two texts.
but ALL the scriptures.
For even as one swallow does not make a summer,neither does one text make a doctrin.


Nowhere does the scriptures say you should throw away your brain.
It DOES say that you must bring your thoughts into CONFORMITY with the scriuptures.
For they have thier OWN logic and REASONING and the HOLY BIBLE HAS ITS OWN INTEGRITY.
How can it not be seeing that it is the WORD OF GOD.
wHOS THOUGHTS are higher than our thoughts and whos ways are not our ways.
Thus we must learn to bring our thinkign and experirence into line with the SCRIPTURES.
Not as so many are doing bringing the scrptures into line with thier own experience and reasoning.
Thus God means to RECONCILE the HEART and the BRAIN so that they are in COMPLETE and perfect harmony and WITH HIM.
 

csmuda

New member
geralduk,
if we had met in 1987 I would be on the same page with you. But this is 2004 and I am unmoved by your apologetic. You're best reasoning here will continue into the next century and Christianity will continue to evolve. Pitty I won't be around to watch it, unless they find a cure for aging. The Lord willing He might allow me another forty years. But what would be great is to see a snap-shot of our Faith in the year 2104.
Blessings to you dude,
sincerely,
Carl
 

geralduk

New member
I make no apologies.
But I will continue to contend for THE faith that was once and for all delivered unto the saints.
The Lord is coming VERY soon "be ye also ready"

aNOTHER THOUGHT..

God is NOT an evolving God.
Yet there is a progresive program of God.
There is in ther main a "great falling away" and many no longer can endure" sound doctrin"
This too was spoken of long ago by the prophets and is but anither sign of the LORDS SOON RETURN.
"For when we see these things we are to look up for our redemption draweth nigh."
Therefore id urge you to go back to what is written and spoekn of by God and NOT men.
 
Last edited:

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Re: Re: King David in hell?

Re: Re: King David in hell?

Originally posted by lighthouse

Enyart believes that King Solomon is in hell?
Why would he not be in hell? After his writings in Proverbs he completely rejected God. The book of Ecclesiastes is the ramblings of a man who has gone off the deep end. You don't actually take the writings of Ecclesiastes to heart do you?
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by csmuda
. . . the very attitude that the world is going to hell in a handbasket still means in the dispy's heart-of-heart she doesn't think there is any hope of seeing Christ's church reign on earth.
That's not true. Dispensationalism teaches that the world will go to hell in a handbasket before the Second Coming but it does not teach the world will go to hell in a handbasket before the rapture.

Don't the MM really wanna just set up a refuge from the "coming storm" if you will?
I believe most of the "Operation Rescue" people who got thrown in jail were dispensationalists. That doesn't sound like they had a "Meet, Eat and Retreat" attitude.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Jefferson-
No, it was not a joke. Falwell is a bigot, not a minister.

Give me a set of scripture from Ecclesiastes and I'll look it up. And it is a very high probability that Solomon was reconciled.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by lighthouse

Jefferson-
No, it was not a joke. Falwell is a bigot, not a minister.
What evidence do you have that Falwell is a bigot?
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Lets see:
He automatically blamed homosexuals, and a few other groups, for the attacks on September 11th...and he didn't even include Muslims, though the terrorists ascribed to the religion. That's bigotry.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by lighthouse

Lets see:
He automatically blamed homosexuals, and a few other groups, for the attacks on September 11th...and he didn't even include Muslims, though the terrorists ascribed to the religion. That's bigotry.
This is what he said, "I put all the blame legally and morally on the actions of the terrorist, [but America's] secular and anti-Christian environment left us open to our Lord's [decision] not to protect. When a nation deserts God and expels God from the culture ... the result is not good."

What's so bigoted about that?
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by lighthouse

That's after he retracted his original statement, isn't it?
Please quote his original statement that shows he's a bigot.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
I can't do it verbatim. I'd have to look it up, or ask someone who watches that snoozefest, The 700 Club.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by lighthouse

I can't do it verbatim. I'd have to look it up, or ask someone who watches that snoozefest, The 700 Club.
So go ahead and look it up. I think you either need to prove your accusation with a direct quote or retract your accusation on this thread.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
I'm not going to do either. And frankly I don't care. I'm done with this conversation. Get over it.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by lighthouse

I'm not going to do either. And frankly I don't care. I'm done with this conversation. Get over it.
Oh, I get it. You get to slander people without cause. Very Christian of you lighthouse. :down:
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
"I resent that! It's not slander! In print, it's libel."

Anyway, I know what he said, as far as who he originally blamed. And I know that he later "retracted" what he had said. But I don't care that much about it, because this all started by my saying I didn't like the guy. Get over it. I don't like him and that's how it stands.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by lighthouse Anyway, I know what he said, as far as who he originally blamed.
Prove it. All you have to do is simply do a google search with the words "Falwell," "Terrorism" and "Homosexuals" and up will come dozens of anti-Jerry Fallwell sites you can easily find the quote from. I'll even do the leg-work for you. Here are the first 5 sites listed at the top of the search results page:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/foulwell.htm

http://www.drsusanblock.com/sexinreview/comment/booth4.htm

http://www.september11-tribute.org/NewsArticles/JerryFalwell.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/WTC_Falwell010914.html

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/falwell.htm

And I know that he later "retracted" what he had said. But I don't care that much about it, because this all started by my saying I didn't like the guy. Get over it. I don't like him and that's how it stands.
Why don't you like him?
 

Nimrod

Member
Re: Re: King David in hell?

Re: Re: King David in hell?

Past 3 weeks I have been extremely busy at work and had very little time to play. So let me go over Acts9_12Out response.


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
1. First off, you failed to respond to the points presented in my previous post.
--Jeremy

Is that the one about works are necessary for salvation?

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
2. You misrepresent me out of anger.
--Jeremy

Oh---yawn! Can't debate the issue, go after the character. heard this many times......

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
3. You still have yet to respond to post #14.
--Jeremy
You are right I have not. We do know that Abraham believed the gospel. (Galatians). The gospel message has never changed. Yaweh saves!

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
That's a lie that stems from your anger. I expect an apology. Here's what I actually said...

God gives us an example of a man who sinned presumptously against Him. This man died in his sin, his guilt upon him, and will be in hell..
--Jeremy

Exactly! You said that, go read your posts. From your logic, King David committed an intentional sin, and therefore his guilt will be upon him and be in hell.

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Instead of addressing what God said in Numbers 15, you get angry and lie. Don't shoot the messenger, but rather, deal with the message... You continue in anger,
--Jeremy

Simple, Numbers 15 doesn't deal with people going to hell or losing their salvation. It does deal with their physical bodies. A man can be saved by the gospel (abraham believed the gospel, therefore it is easy to see the Israelites had the gospel too.) After the man is saved, he commites an intentional sin, like King David, the man is put to death but does not go to hell because of it.


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
I said no such thing. Yet another lie stemming from anger... We never discussed David. If you'd like to do so, fine... Just say so...
--Jeremy

You talked about committing an intentional sin. Why is it wrong to bring up Scripture examples of intentional sins? Your begining to sound like John Kerry.


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
I have never said David is in hell, nor do I believe so... Yes, David did commit a presumptous sin,
--Jeremy

Ok then, why are you angry at me for bring him up?

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
and deserved death and hell. However, God looks at the heart. God saw that David was "a man after His own heart..."
--Jeremy

Tell me where in Numbers do we find the word "hell"? Why didn't God use that word? He did in Deut.

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Unfortunately, you didn't read far enough in 2 Samuel 12...
--Jeremy

No, apparently you didn't read Numbers 15 correctly. Nowhere does it state the man will go to hell.


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*

Nimrod, why would Nathan say, "The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die," if David did not deserve the same fate as the man in Numbers 15? Again, God saw David's repentant heart and graced him out... David describes this event in Psalm 32. Paul echoes the Psalm in Romans 4. God pardoned David's sin that did indeed deserve death...
--Jeremy

But you said "God gives us an example of a man who sinned presumptously against Him. This man died in his sin, his guilt upon him, and will be in hell.."
Now you are changing your mind. (John Kerry?)
Let me say this; Men do not go to hell because they commit a presumptous sin.


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Nimrod, what if the man in Numbers 15 had repented? Would God still have commanded the children of Israel to kill him? I think not.
--Jeremy

Again, we are talking about a physical death.


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
The point still stands... The man in Numbers 15 committed a presumptous sin by not keeping God's law. That same man was unrepentant and died in his sin. Deal with Numbers 15 when you're not so angry...
--Jeremy

You don't know that! How do you know that man was unrepentant? I am dealing with Numbers 15. I am dealing with what it says, you are dealing with what you "think" it says.


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
What I find interesting is, those who argue "faith alone" fail to define their terms. They usually say, "Yep, we are saved by faith alone," but fail to tell us where their "faith alone" is based.
--Jeremy
Based on the relationship with God

Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Nimrod, I have argued that all are saved by "faith alone" in God. What you failed to address was the fact that God changes the way He asks man to show faith. All who are saved by "faith alone" must have faith in whatever God asks them to believe. God did not ask the man in Numbers 15 to have "faith alone" in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God commanded that man to have "faith alone" in His law. If that man attempted to keep God's law by faith alone he would be righteous before God. That man chose to reject God's law and went to hell, his guilt upon him.

Riddle me this Nimrod... If a person has faith alone in God, but rejects the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, can that person be saved today? I didn't think so...
--Jeremy
If the person has "faith alone" will have a relationship with Jesus Christ and could never lose salvation, no matter how much sin this person commits in his heart.

Jeremy, you make an interesting observation here. Works (showing of faith) was never required for salvation in the history of man. Today we tell people who need to be saved to go to Jesus Christ, but in the OT times there was no Jesus Christ, other than the belief that He will come. "thy seed will bruise it's head". We just need to believe in God that He will save us. Yaweh saves!
 
Top