| Dispensationalism A forum for the discussion of dispensationalist theology. |
 | | 
7th May 2012, 02:26 PM
|  | Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations
34    
 | | Join Date: 21st December 2010
Posts: 1,754
Blessings: 1,131,870
Reps: 165,224,016,703,974,432 (power: 165,224,016,703,978) | | | Proof that the Day of Wrath and the Day of Deliverance are simultaneous events:
“Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompense; he will come and save you.” (Isaiah 35:4)
So while God is coming with vengeance, he is ALSO coming to deliver the righteous!
“For I the Lord thy God will hold thy right hand, saying unto thee, Fear not; I will help thee.” (Isaiah 41:13)
“God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels” (2 Thessalonians 1:6-7 NIV).
2 Thessalonians 1:6-7 could not be any clearer.
“The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” (Matthew 13:41-43 NKJV). – this takes place AT the Second Coming!  |
7th May 2012, 03:13 PM
| | Vindicating our Historic Biblical Foundations
34
| | Join Date: 21st December 2010
Posts: 1,754
Blessings: 1,131,870
Reps: 165,224,016,703,974,432 (power: 165,224,016,703,978) | | | Charles Spurgeon,
It is good to see that you adapt the post-tribulation rapture position.
However, I do want to bring something to your attention.
Now pay close attention.
You do realize that if you do not believe that the earth will be a void and desolate wilderness without any inhabitants during the millennium, this puts you at a great disadvantage when trying to prove the pre-trib rapture proponents wrong, right?
The pre-trib rapture view is necessary only if one believes there will be a millennial reign on earth during the 1000 years. This becomes necessary because according to Pre-Trib Rapture Dispensationalists, in order for God to fulfill both promises (the promise that the Church will be in the mansions prepared in heaven, and the promise that they will reign on earth), there must be a pre-tribulation rapture first so that the saints can have time (namely, 7 years) to be in heaven before ruling here on earth during the millennium.
So Spurgeon, if you are going to subscribe to a post-tribulation rapture view, it is my hope that you will fortify this position by not subscribing to the unbibiblical view of an earthly reign after the Second Advent.
The correct and Biblical view is thus: That at the Second Coming, all the saints that have ever lived, from Adam to the last righteous man, are caught up into the clouds of heaven and taken to reign with Christ for 1000 years in the heavenly New Jerusalem. All the wicked will be destroyed by the brightness of His coming. This leaves no human beings left on this planet during the 1000 years, save for Lucifer and his fallen angels--left to wonder about on the broken, dark, and cold surface of this earth.
So when will the promise of the earthly reign commence? At the end of the millennium, when the New Jerusalem, that same Beloved City in Revelation 20, comes down from heaven and settles on the Mount of Olives. This is not the Second Coming, but a "third coming", not for the righteous, but to hold the final judgment of Satan, his hosts, and all the wicked.
After the destruction of Satan, his hosts, and all the wicked, the earth is made new, and this is when the earth is renewed.
God made this world in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. Likewise, it makes only logical sense for God to repeat this same procedure in this short amount of time. The earth will not "gradually" become new during the 1000 years. That is not Biblical. God will show his power by creating this earth in 6 literal days, and we will rest on this earth made new on the 7th.
I have a lot of scriptures (and I mean a LOT) to back up all that I said, but I thought I would simply write this up so you first understand the view.
To hold to a post-tribulation rapture forces one to believe that there will be no earthly reign during the millennium, but it will be in heaven.
God's people will not be in heaven for a few measly 7 years. But they will be in heaven for 1000 years before Heaven is restored to this planet.
So I submit that the only Biblically logical way to hold to a post-tribulation rapture view is to subscribe to an Historicist-Adventist-Premillennial-Eschatological-Chronological understanding, that being understood as "heavenly premillennialism".
Otherwise, the pre-trib rapture proponents will have the upper-hand in the debate.
Last edited by Lysimachus; 7th May 2012 at 03:23 PM.
|
8th May 2012, 01:01 AM
| | Member
  
| | Join Date: 18th April 2012
Posts: 213
Blessings: 5,101
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | | Well, I would disagree with Lysimachus. I lean more toward a post-trib view and I believe that the church will reign on earth with Christ as he promised in Rev 5:10. This position is often referred to as historical pre-mill-ism. The label is not necessary, but it refers to the fact that it was the basic view of most of the early church fathers in the second century like Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian and the writer of the Didache. These people were closer to the apostles that us and I believe simply passed on the view they received from the apostles. |
8th May 2012, 03:13 AM
| | Member
| | Join Date: 18th April 2012
Posts: 213
Blessings: 5,101
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | | @ Biblewriter - one of the main points you have tried to make is that the Old Testament phrase "the Day of the Lord" refers exclusively to judgment. I have disagreed.
I quoted from several Bible dictionaries showing that it is a common understanding among modern Bible scholars, including dispensationalists, that the day of the Lord contains aspects of both judgment and blessing. You pointed out that although modern scholars say that, the dispensationalists in the 19th century held the view you are espousing. Obviously it is not important who holds the view, but why they hold the view they do.
Zechariah 14 is one example (of which there many) where the phrase "the day of the Lord" is used to refer to both judgment and blessing. Zechariah 14:1 says "Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of the thee." In verses 2 and 3 the prophet says that God will go out to wage war.
In 14:4 the prophet talks about the return of Christ to the mount of Olives and at the end of verse 5 it says that the LORD shall come with his saints. Verse 6 continues with the phrase "in that day." Which day are we talking about? It can only be the same day, the day of the Lord. Verses 6 and 7 read:
"And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark: But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light."
What does this mean? Does this negate the statements that say that the day of the Lord will be dark? I don't think so. As you pointed out, there are a series of steps. For part of the day it is completely dark, but as 14:7 says, by evening it is light. Verse 8 continues to talk of blessing.
My point is that a series of events take place, one after the other, not simultaneously, but one after the other. But they all take place on the same day, the day of the Lord.
Now having said this, I don't understand why your position on this point is so important for you. Modern dispensationalists believe in the separation of the rapture from the second coming just like you, but this idea that I have shown about the day of the Lord referring to both judgment and blessing doesn't phase them a bit. It doesn't shake their understanding of the rapture at all. You said that you want to show the necessity of two comings and not just one. But as you said, the Old Testament did not clearly make a distinction between the first and second comings. So why can't you make a distinction between the rapture and second coming without having to adjust the definition of the day of the Lord? |
8th May 2012, 08:06 AM
|  | Senior Member
69   
| | Join Date: 15th May 2005 Location: Farmington, Missouri
Posts: 5,158
Blessings: 10,229,135
Reps: 428,420,671,968,548,416 (power: 428,420,671,968,562) | | Originally Posted by mark273  Reading Cosby's article, I couldn't help but think he overstates his case and in fact gives quite a bit of evidence to show that the word απαντησις can have that meaning, if only sometimes rather than exclusively. But it seems clear that in the other two places in the New Testament it has that basic idea of going out to meet someone to accompany them back. To me that is the basic idea rather than having it to be identical to a specific Hellenistic cultural event. When he describes the elements of the Hellenistic ritual being absent from Paul's description of the return of Christ, I just felt like Paul was still referring to the main idea and all the details of the ritual don't need to be there. The basic idea is there.
Your referring to this article was not an appeal to authority, but rather to the arguments he was making. I think his arguments are overstated (probably Peterson's were also) and the evidence he gives confirms in my mind the general understanding I proposed.
I would agree with you that arguing at length about the absence of formal elements is questionable at best. But you seem to be forgetting that the word itself was used as a simple or even antagonistic meeting far more often than it was used of a reception, formal or otherwise.
__________________
Biblewriter is the handle of James C. Morris. I call myself Biblewriter because I write about the Bible. |
8th May 2012, 08:09 AM
| | Senior Member
69
| | Join Date: 15th May 2005 Location: Farmington, Missouri
Posts: 5,158
Blessings: 10,229,135
Reps: 428,420,671,968,548,416 (power: 428,420,671,968,562) | | Originally Posted by mark273 @ Biblewriter - if you have access to the Bulletin of Biblical Research where Cosby's article was found, you might look at the vol 6 (1996) pages 39-41. There Robert Gundry gives a response to Cosby's article and says basically what I did above.
Gundry concludes this way:
"On the whole, then, Paul's description of the Parousia in 1 Thess 4:15-17 comes closer to what we know of Hellenistic formal recep[bless and do not curse]tions than Cosby allows. True, άπάντησις does not by itself connote a reception of that kind. But the Thessalonian context, the αυτός which calls special attention to Jesus' dignity as Lord or Emperor ("the Lord himself " —1 Thess 4:15), the remarkable fact that only here in the NT are Christians said to be "caught [ u p ] . .. to meet the Lord in the a i r" (1 Thess 4:17, though cf. Matt 25:1, 6), and the appearance of elements of Hellenistic formal receptions also in other Pauline mentions of the Parousia all combine to favor such a connotation for άπάντησις."
As I said, I got the same impression reading Cosby's article.
I was already familiar with Gundry's article (and had even downloaded it to my computer) but I found his answer unconvincing.
__________________
Biblewriter is the handle of James C. Morris. I call myself Biblewriter because I write about the Bible. |
8th May 2012, 08:27 AM
| | Member
| | Join Date: 18th April 2012
Posts: 213
Blessings: 5,101
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | | I don't know that I am forgetting about how the word can be taken or how it is taken much of the time. All I know is that the range of meaning allows for a positive reception, and that that is how it is taken in the two other places the word is mentioned in the New Testament. But more importantly, if a word has a range of meaning that can allow for a positive or a negative meaning, then the context must decide. I would say that 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is an overwhelmingly positive context. |
8th May 2012, 08:30 AM
| | Senior Member
69
| | Join Date: 15th May 2005 Location: Farmington, Missouri
Posts: 5,158
Blessings: 10,229,135
Reps: 428,420,671,968,548,416 (power: 428,420,671,968,562) | | Originally Posted by mark273 I teach both Greek and Hebrew at a seminary overseas.
Then you obviously know more about the languages than I do.
So now I am going to ask you a question about the specific meaning of the Hebrew words in Jeremiah 30:7. I am not making a point, for I have no idea what the answer is. But I have no one I know of to go to to ask a technical question.
The question is concerning the words "saved out of it" in the sentence "Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it."
There are two possible interpretations of the English words used here, namely that Jacob will be plucked, as it were, out of the time of trouble or that he will be protected through the time of trouble.
But what do the actual Hebrew words used mean?
Does the construction of the Hebrew words actually indicate or imply that Jacob will be removed from the time or place of trouble? Do these Hebrew words indicate or imply that Jacob will be kept or protected through this time or place? And what are the specific reasons for the position you take on this.
MY point of reference for this question is the debate about the meaning of the Greek word ek, as used in Revelation 3:10. My argument has been that this verse explicitly says that there is coming a time of trouble "upon all the world," but that the saints addressed will be kept out of that time. I am relatively certain that your argument will be that the meaning is that they will be preserved through that time, but I simply cannot see that in this passage. It is possible to compose an imposing list of respected Greek scholars who take each side in that debate.
But that is not my question. My question is about the specific meaning of the Hebrew words translated "saved out of it: in Jeremiah 30:7. I have never found even one Hebrew scholar who took a position on this.
__________________
Biblewriter is the handle of James C. Morris. I call myself Biblewriter because I write about the Bible. |
8th May 2012, 08:38 AM
| | Senior Member
69
| | Join Date: 15th May 2005 Location: Farmington, Missouri
Posts: 5,158
Blessings: 10,229,135
Reps: 428,420,671,968,548,416 (power: 428,420,671,968,562) | | Originally Posted by mark273 @ Biblewriter - one of the main points you have tried to make is that the Old Testament phrase "the Day of the Lord" refers exclusively to judgment. I have disagreed.
I quoted from several Bible dictionaries showing that it is a common understanding among modern Bible scholars, including dispensationalists, that the day of the Lord contains aspects of both judgment and blessing. You pointed out that although modern scholars say that, the dispensationalists in the 19th century held the view you are espousing. Obviously it is not important who holds the view, but why they hold the view they do.
Zechariah 14 is one example (of which there many) where the phrase "the day of the Lord" is used to refer to both judgment and blessing. Zechariah 14:1 says "Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of the thee." In verses 2 and 3 the prophet says that God will go out to wage war.
In 14:4 the prophet talks about the return of Christ to the mount of Olives and at the end of verse 5 it says that the LORD shall come with his saints. Verse 6 continues with the phrase "in that day." Which day are we talking about? It can only be the same day, the day of the Lord. Verses 6 and 7 read:
"And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark: But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light."
What does this mean? Does this negate the statements that say that the day of the Lord will be dark? I don't think so. As you pointed out, there are a series of steps. For part of the day it is completely dark, but as 14:7 says, by evening it is light. Verse 8 continues to talk of blessing.
My point is that a series of events take place, one after the other, not simultaneously, but one after the other. But they all take place on the same day, the day of the Lord.
Now having said this, I don't understand why your position on this point is so important for you. Modern dispensationalists believe in the separation of the rapture from the second coming just like you, but this idea that I have shown about the day of the Lord referring to both judgment and blessing doesn't phase them a bit. It doesn't shake their understanding of the rapture at all. You said that you want to show the necessity of two comings and not just one. But as you said, the Old Testament did not clearly make a distinction between the first and second comings. So why can't you make a distinction between the rapture and second coming without having to adjust the definition of the day of the Lord?
I see your point, but I will also point out that verses 10 to 11 of the same chapter could not possibly take place on within the same 24 hour period as when he comes in judgment.
__________________
Biblewriter is the handle of James C. Morris. I call myself Biblewriter because I write about the Bible. |
8th May 2012, 08:40 AM
| | Senior Member
69
| | Join Date: 15th May 2005 Location: Farmington, Missouri
Posts: 5,158
Blessings: 10,229,135
Reps: 428,420,671,968,548,416 (power: 428,420,671,968,562) | | Originally Posted by mark273 I don't know that I am forgetting about how the word can be taken or how it is taken much of the time. All I know is that the range of meaning allows for a positive reception, and that that is how it is taken in the two other places the word is mentioned in the New Testament. But more importantly, if a word has a range of meaning that can allow for a positive or a negative meaning, then the context must decide. I would say that 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is an overwhelmingly positive context.
I completely agree with the statement that the range of applications found by Cosby most certainly includes that.
__________________
Biblewriter is the handle of James C. Morris. I call myself Biblewriter because I write about the Bible. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
