MORE RAPTURE QUESTIONS

[Hank77]

Hi Hank,

Fait enough question. Yes we see that Jesus was talking to the people of Israel, however the intended audience was for Roman readers.

Marilyn.

Do you realize you just accused Mark and Luke of lying and not only lying but actually changing what our Lord said to mean something different?

 

[BABerean2]

The claim that Darby got this idea from the Irvingites is a rank assumption which lacks any vestige of proof.

How about Darby's first paper from 1829, which includes a reference to "The Morning Watch", which was the periodical of the Ivingites?

PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418


Lacunza, Manuel, “Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty“
PDF Files


Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/pretrib_history.pdf

.

 

[Marilyn C]

Do you realize you just accused Mark and Luke of lying and not only lying but actually changing what our Lord said to mean something different?

Hi Hank77,

Can you explain please?

Marilyn.

 

[Hank77]

Hi Hank77,

Can you explain please?

Marilyn.

No, I think you need to think this through for awhile on your own. Maybe pray about?
Posted to me again tomorrow.

 

[Biblewriter]

How about Darby's first paper from 1829, which includes a reference to "The Morning Watch", which was the periodical of the Ivingites?

PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418


Lacunza, Manuel, “Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty“
PDF Files


Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/pretrib_history.pdf

.

It is well known that Darby knew at least much of what Irving said. But he was widely read, and could not have been ignorant of what many others had said earlier. The writer I mentioned, Grantham Killingworth, who published his works in 1761, clearly taught a rapture well before the Lord came to set up the millennium, and before the Antichrist arose. He also clearly taught that the tribulation was aimed at the Jews, who would be restored to their homeland at that time, and spoke extensively of the temple worship in the millennium.

I am currently preparing a more complete review of what this writer actually said. But as this was published only 29 years before Darby was born, it would be surprising if Darby did not read it. So the fact that Darby read some of what Irving wrote, proves exactly nothing.

Another such writer was Lewis Way, who published very similar thoughts in the early 1800s, while Darby was a teenager. The HARD FACT is that this doctrine was circulating in England at the time. And numerous writers had taken it up, even before Irving did. And the fact that you have found certain writers who were ignorant of this, is meaningless.

 

[Marilyn C]

Do you realize you just accused Mark and Luke of lying and not only lying but actually changing what our Lord said to mean something different?

Hi Hank77,

Let me clarify then. When I said -

Fair enough question. Yes we see that Jesus was talking to the people of Israel, however the intended audience was for Roman readers.

I was referring to those to whom the book of Mark was written - the Romans. The book of Luke was written for the Greeks. This is well known. It reveals that the approach of each book is presented with regard to the intended audience.

We, of course can read these books, however the different presentations reveal Christ as -

Matthew presents Christ as King, to the Jews.
Mark presents Him as the Servant of Jehovah, to the Romans.
Luke presents Him as the perfect Man, to the Greeks.
John wrote to prove the Jesus was the Christ, the promised Messiah(for the Jews), and the Son of God (for the Gentiles).

Marilyn.

 

[BABerean2]

And numerous writers had taken it up, even before Irving did. And the fact that you have found certain writers who were ignorant of this, is meaningless.

Dr. Charles Ryrie was one of the best known Dispensationalists of our time.
His book "Dispensationalism", clearly states that Darby became interested in prophecy at one of the Albury Conferences.
Edward Irving presented Lacunza's book at the Albury Conference.
Irving used the word "dispensation" thirteen times on one page of his commentary that he added to his English translation of Lacunza's book.
And then Darby refers to the Irvingite journal "The Moring Watch" in his prophetic paper of 1829.

I guess we are supposed to believe all of this is just a coincidence.

.

 

[BABerean2]

Jesus could not have revealed the `Church` to the 12 disciples or He would have been a liar. Jesus, the Head, only revealed the revelation of the Body of Christ, first, to the Apostle Paul.

Not only did Christ use the word "Church" in Matthew's Gospel, how do you explain the Great Commission to the Church at the end of Matthew's Gospel?

How do you explain the fact that Peter was the first one to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, in the house of Cornelius, who received the Holy Spirit while hearing Peter preach?

Gentiles Hear the Good News

Act 10:34　 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:　

Act 10:35　 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.　

Act 10:36　 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all　

Act 10:37　 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;　

Act 10:38　 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.　

Act 10:39　 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:　

Act 10:40　 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;　

Act 10:41　 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.　

Act 10:42　 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.　

Act 10:43　 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.　


The Holy Spirit Falls on the Gentiles

Act 10:44　 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.　

Act 10:45　 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.　

Act 10:46　 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,　

Act 10:47　 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?　

Act 10:48　 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.　


All false doctrines are exposed not through the scripture quoted by its proponents, but rather by the scripture they must ignore to make it work.
Your Two Peoples of God doctrine is an excellent example.
.

 

[Marilyn C]

Not only did Christ use the word "Church" in Matthew's Gospel, how do you explain the Great Commission to the Church at the end of Matthew's Gospel?

How do you explain the fact that Peter was the first one to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, in the house of Cornelius, who received the Holy Spirit while hearing Peter preach?

Gentiles Hear the Good News

Act 10:34　 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:　

Act 10:35　 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.　

Act 10:36　 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all　

Act 10:37　 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;　

Act 10:38　 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.　

Act 10:39　 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:　

Act 10:40　 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;　

Act 10:41　 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.　

Act 10:42　 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.　

Act 10:43　 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.　


The Holy Spirit Falls on the Gentiles

Act 10:44　 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.　

Act 10:45　 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.　

Act 10:46　 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,　

Act 10:47　 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?　

Act 10:48　 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.　


All false doctrines are exposed not through the scripture quoted by its proponents, but rather by the scripture they must ignore to make it work.
Your Two Peoples of God doctrine is an excellent example.
.

Hi BABerean,

Jesus used the word `ekklesia,` meaning called out ones. He did not specify what that meant. The Body of Christ revelation would not be revealed by the Lord till later to the Apostle Paul. Just think if Peter knew of the Body of Christ, then he would have gone to the Gentiles earlier without having to be quickened in a vision by the Holy Spirit.

When Peter went to the Gentiles he did not talk about the Body of Christ but talked of Jesus, (Acts 10: 34 -48). As he was speaking the Holy Spirit fell upon those who heard. Thus we see the gift of the Holy Spirit was given to the Gentiles. That was the purpose of the Lord sending Peter.

Now remember Apollos. he was mighty in the scriptures but he did not have a full understanding of God`s purpose re the Body of Christ.(Acts 18: 24 - 28)

As to the Great Commission, there is no revelation of the Body of Christ there. The Lord is speaking to the 12 disciples who were to go to the people of Israel and proclaim that He Jesus is the Lord and the Christ. (Acts 2: 36)

Marilyn.

 

[BABerean2]

Hi BABerean,

Jesus used the word `ekklesia,` meaning called out ones. He did not specify what that meant. The Body of Christ revelation would not be revealed by the Lord till later to the Apostle Paul. Just think if Peter knew of the Body of Christ, then he would have gone to the Gentiles earlier without having to be quickened in a vision by the Holy Spirit.

When Peter went to the Gentiles he did not talk about the Body of Christ but talked of Jesus, (Acts 10: 34 -48). As he was speaking the Holy Spirit fell upon those who heard. Thus we see the gift of the Holy Spirit was given to the Gentiles. That was the purpose of the Lord sending Peter.

Now remember Apollos. he was mighty in the scriptures but he did not have a full understanding of God`s purpose re the Body of Christ.(Acts 18: 24 - 28)

As to the Great Commission, there is no revelation of the Body of Christ there. The Lord is speaking to the 12 disciples who were to go to the people of Israel and proclaim that He Jesus is the Lord and the Christ. (Acts 2: 36)

Marilyn.

The Body of Christ is made up of all those in the New Covenant.

Jer_31:31　 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—

Mat_26:28　 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mar_14:24　 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.

Luk_22:20　 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

1Co_11:25　 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

2Co_3:6　 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Heb_8:8　 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH—

Heb_8:13　 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Heb_9:15　 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Heb_12:24　 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

,

 

[Biblewriter]

Dr. Charles Ryrie was one of the best known Dispensationalists of our time.
His book "Dispensationalism", clearly states that Darby became interested in prophecy at one of the Albury Conferences.
Edward Irving presented Lacunza's book at the Albury Conference.
Irving used the word "dispensation" thirteen times on one page of his commentary that he added to his English translation of Lacunza's book.
And then Darby refers to the Irvingite journal "The Moring Watch" in his prophetic paper of 1829.

I guess we are supposed to believe all of this is just a coincidence.

.

You refer to the well known fact that Darby knew about Irving's writings. And from this you assume, without an iota of proof, that Darby got his Dispensational and pre-trib ideas from Irving. But you choose to ignore other facts that I personally know that you know about, because you have reacted to my posts when I cited them.

One of these facts is that Darby considered Irving a blasphemer, and one of the worst accusations he would often throw against an opponent in a debate was to accuse him of "Irvingism." Another was that Darby spoke very respectfully of William Lowth, calling him "the calm and judicious Lowth," who had written of these things a hundred years earlier. And a third is that Darby's own writings show that he had read widely in the published literature of his day. And it would be unreasonable to assume that this reading did not include the writings of Grantham Killingworth, which had been published only 29 years before Darby was born, and of Lewis Way, whose writings had been published almost fifteen years before Irving published his English translation of Lacunza's book.

You simply assumed, and continue to argue, even though it has been absolutely disproved, that both Dispensationalism in general and the doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture in particular, did not exist prior to at least Manuel Lacunza's book, which was published in Spanish 1785 and not published in English until 1827. But that has been clearly and completely disproved in posts which you have seen. These posts have included clearly stated citations which made it easy for you to check and see for yourself whether or not they were true and taken in their proper context. If you had checked out these citations, you would have seen that they were indeed both true ans taken in the intended context of the writers. If you did not bother to check out these citations, that is your problem.

So quoting any number of real or alleged experts can change nothing. For you have been personally confronted with the HARD PROOF that what these "experts" have said was incorrect.

 

[BABerean2]

You refer to the well known fact that Darby knew about Irving's writings. And from this you assume, without an iota of proof, that Darby got his Dispensational and pre-trib ideas from Irving. But you choose to ignore other facts that I personally know that you know about, because you have reacted to my posts when I cited them.

One of these facts is that Darby considered Irving a blasphemer, and one of the worst accusations he would often throw against an opponent in a debate was to accuse him of "Irvingism." Another was that Darby spoke very respectfully of William Lowth, calling him "the calm and judicious Lowth," who had written of these things a hundred years earlier. And a third is that Darby's own writings show that he had read widely in the published literature of his day. And it would be unreasonable to assume that this reading did not include the writings of Grantham Killingworth, which had been published only 29 years before Darby was born, and of Lewis Way, whose writings had been published almost fifteen years before Irving published his English translation of Lacunza's book.

You simply assumed, and continue to argue, even though it has been absolutely disproved, that both Dispensationalism in general and the doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture in particular, did not exist prior to at least Manuel Lacunza's book, which was published in Spanish 1785 and not published in English until 1827. But that has been clearly and completely disproved in posts which you have seen. These posts have included clearly stated citations which made it easy for you to check and see for yourself whether or not they were true and taken in their proper context. If you had checked out these citations, you would have seen that they were indeed both true ans taken in the intended context of the writers. If you did not bother to check out these citations, that is your problem.

So quoting any number of real or alleged experts can change nothing. For you have been personally confronted with the HARD PROOF that what these "experts" have said was incorrect.

It seems that those on your own team cannot get their story straight.

Dr. Thomas Ice tells one story.

Dr. Charles Ryrie told another story.

And now you claim that both of them are wrong and you are correct.

To the best of my knowledge you have yet to produce a source, other than Darby, which claimed modern Jews will come to salvation outside of the Church.

You also claim the New Covenant is an important part of Dispensational Theology, and we are still waiting to see some evidence of this from the books you have written.

Brethren Historian F.R. Coad agrees with my version of the story in the paper below.

PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418


But you say I am the problem...

.

 

[Biblewriter]

It seems that those on your own team cannot get their story straight.

Dr. Thomas Ice tells one story.

Dr. Charles Ryrie told another story.

And now you claim that both of them are wrong and you are correct.

To the best of my knowledge you have yet to produce a source, other than Darby, which claimed modern Jews will come to salvation outside of the Church.

You also claim the New Covenant is an important part of Dispensational Theology, and we are still waiting to see some evidence of this from the books you have written.

Brethren Historian F.R. Coad agrees with my version of the story in the paper below.

PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418


But you say I am the problem...

.

I did not claim I am correct. I proved what I said. The comments made by these other writers were made before people began to research the actual history of these doctrines, in response to the false accusations being made about them.

Although I am not aware of any papers Thomas Ice has yet published in regard to this new research, he has published his delight about and approval of the new book by William C. Watson, titled "Dispensationalism Before Darby."

And William C. Watson has personally encouraged me to publish a book containing my findings.

 

[WailingWall]

We do not feel a need to "get around" any scriptures. We leave that to those that deny a literal interpretation of end time prophecy.

The great trumpet mentioned in Isaiah 27:13 is blown a significant time after the Lord has returned in power and glory to judge the world for its wickedness. This is the absolute and final proof that "the last trump" in 1 Corinthians 15:50 cannot mean the last trumpet that will ever be blown. For this trumpet is blown is long after even the latest interpretation of the timing of the rapture.

Nope. That is not true. All happens "in THAT day"

1COR.15 [51] Behold, I shew 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 trump: FOR THE TRUMPET SHALL SOUND, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and WE SHALL BE CHANGED.[53] For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.[54] So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP IN VICTORY.

Death is swallowed up in victory at the 1Cor15 event

ISAIAH 25 [8] HE WILL SWALLOW UP DEATH IN VICTORY; and the Lord GOD will WIPE AWAY TEARS from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.[9] And it shall be said IN THAT DAY, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.

IN THAT DAY= Death is swallowed up in victory

ISAIAH 27 [12] And it shall come to pass IN THAT DAY, that the LORD shall beat off from the channel of the river unto the stream of Egypt, and YE SHALL BE GATHERED ONE BY ONE, O YE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. [13] And it shall come to pass IN THAT DAY, that the GREAT TRUMPET SHALL BE BLOWN, and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem.

IN THAT DAY= Last trumpet {1Cor.15} will be blown and Gods people gathered {in the twinkling of an eye}

ISAIAH 2 [11] The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted IN THAT DAY. [12] For THE DAY OF THE LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:

IN THAT DAY= The Day of the Lord

ISAIAH 2 [19] And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth. [20] IN THAT DAY a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which they made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats; [21] To go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, WHEN HE ARISETH TO SHAKE TERRIBLY THE EARTH.

IN THAT DAY= Yup. Surely the Day of the Lord

 

[WailingWall]

Of those three that you named, the post trib view agrees with your position of no-one, when the rapture takes place, goes to heaven. The issue of their being a rapture is clearly in the text of 1thessalonians 4:15-18. The prime argument is over when, not whether it will take place.

Which leaves a question to you - when does the event of 1thessalonians4:15-18, them who are alive translated takes place?

When? Thats easy to point out if you believe the scriptures

1 THES. 4 [13] But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye SORROW NOT, EVEN AS OTHERS which have no hope. [14] For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. [15] For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. [16] For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with THE VOICE of the archangel, and with THE TRUMP OF GOD: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: [17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them IN THE CLOUDS, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. [18] Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

1THES.4 – voice – clouds – trump of God – sorrow not as others -

ZEPH. 1 – voice – clouds – the trumpet – man shall cry bitterly -

ZEPH. 1 [14] The great DAY OF THE LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even THE VOICE of the day of the Lord: the mighty MAN SHALL CRY THERE BITTERLY. [15] That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a DAY OF CLOUDS and thick darkness, [16] A DAY OF THE TRUMPET and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers. [17] And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the Lord: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung.

No doubt about it. Both scriptures are speaking of the same event. Both scriptures speak of what happens on the Day of the Lord.

The Day of the Lord takes place AFTER the tribulation period

 

[jerry kelso]

Not only did Christ use the word "Church" in Matthew's Gospel, how do you explain the Great Commission to the Church at the end of Matthew's Gospel?

How do you explain the fact that Peter was the first one to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, in the house of Cornelius, who received the Holy Spirit while hearing Peter preach?

Gentiles Hear the Good News

Act 10:34　 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:　

Act 10:35　 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.　

Act 10:36　 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all　

Act 10:37　 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;　

Act 10:38　 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.　

Act 10:39　 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:　

Act 10:40　 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;　

Act 10:41　 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.　

Act 10:42　 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.　

Act 10:43　 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.　


The Holy Spirit Falls on the Gentiles

Act 10:44　 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.　

Act 10:45　 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.　

Act 10:46　 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,　

Act 10:47　 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?　

Act 10:48　 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.　


All false doctrines are exposed not through the scripture quoted by its proponents, but rather by the scripture they must ignore to make it work.
Your Two Peoples of God doctrine is an excellent example.
.

baberean2,

Talk about ignoring scripture. You have ignored Jeremiah 30:9 out of the whole context of Jeremiah 30 at least 3 times because you know David wasn't raised up by God in his day.
He will in the KoH days which is still future. What you have done by your ignoring scripture and total context and then accuse other people of doing the same thing is called hypocrisy because of a mote in your eye.
What is it going to take for you to quit doing such a harmful thing? Your position is the minority in numbers because of the real truth which is opposite of what you say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quit while you still have time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Jerry kelso

 

[jgr]

You refer to the well known fact that Darby knew about Irving's writings. And from this you assume, without an iota of proof, that Darby got his Dispensational and pre-trib ideas from Irving. But you choose to ignore other facts that I personally know that you know about, because you have reacted to my posts when I cited them.

One of these facts is that Darby considered Irving a blasphemer, and one of the worst accusations he would often throw against an opponent in a debate was to accuse him of "Irvingism." Another was that Darby spoke very respectfully of William Lowth, calling him "the calm and judicious Lowth," who had written of these things a hundred years earlier. And a third is that Darby's own writings show that he had read widely in the published literature of his day. And it would be unreasonable to assume that this reading did not include the writings of Grantham Killingworth, which had been published only 29 years before Darby was born, and of Lewis Way, whose writings had been published almost fifteen years before Irving published his English translation of Lacunza's book.

You simply assumed, and continue to argue, even though it has been absolutely disproved, that both Dispensationalism in general and the doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture in particular, did not exist prior to at least Manuel Lacunza's book, which was published in Spanish 1785 and not published in English until 1827. But that has been clearly and completely disproved in posts which you have seen. These posts have included clearly stated citations which made it easy for you to check and see for yourself whether or not they were true and taken in their proper context. If you had checked out these citations, you would have seen that they were indeed both true ans taken in the intended context of the writers. If you did not bother to check out these citations, that is your problem.

So quoting any number of real or alleged experts can change nothing. For you have been personally confronted with the HARD PROOF that what these "experts" have said was incorrect.

Who is aware of Grantham Killingworth?

His era was that of some of Christendom's most recognized and acclaimed evangelists and apologists e.g. John and Charles Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Francis Asbury, et al. Who of these ever acknowledged, let alone endorsed, Grantham Killingworth's dispensational speculations, or anything else he may have produced? Were his speculations ever subjected to any tests of historic orthodoxy?

If so, we'd like to see the results.

From Wikipedia:
"Grantham Killingworth (1699–1778) was an English lay Baptist controversialist."

 

[Biblewriter]

Nope. That is not true. All happens "in THAT day"

1COR.15 [51] Behold, I shew 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 trump: FOR THE TRUMPET SHALL SOUND, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and WE SHALL BE CHANGED.[53] For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.[54] So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP IN VICTORY.

Death is swallowed up in victory at the 1Cor15 event

ISAIAH 25 [8] HE WILL SWALLOW UP DEATH IN VICTORY; and the Lord GOD will WIPE AWAY TEARS from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.[9] And it shall be said IN THAT DAY, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.

IN THAT DAY= Death is swallowed up in victory

ISAIAH 27 [12] And it shall come to pass IN THAT DAY, that the LORD shall beat off from the channel of the river unto the stream of Egypt, and YE SHALL BE GATHERED ONE BY ONE, O YE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. [13] And it shall come to pass IN THAT DAY, that the GREAT TRUMPET SHALL BE BLOWN, and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem.

IN THAT DAY= Last trumpet {1Cor.15} will be blown and Gods people gathered {in the twinkling of an eye}

ISAIAH 2 [11] The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted IN THAT DAY. [12] For THE DAY OF THE LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:

IN THAT DAY= The Day of the Lord

ISAIAH 2 [19] And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth. [20] IN THAT DAY a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which they made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats; [21] To go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, WHEN HE ARISETH TO SHAKE TERRIBLY THE EARTH.

IN THAT DAY= Yup. Surely the Day of the Lord

I scripture, as in everyday language, the word "day" has three distinct meanings.

It can mean:
1. The portion of a 24 hour period during which the subject area is lighted by the sun.
2. The time it takes (24 hours) for the earth to complete one revolution.
3. An indistinct period of time, as old people speaking of the time of their youth as "in our day."

Only the context can show which of these meanings, all of which are completely valid, is meant by any usage of the word "day." In the case of the scripture in question, the scriptures clearly describe a long series of events that will take place when the Lord returns. And this is scripture well along in that series.

 

[Biblewriter]

Who is aware of Grantham Killingworth?

His era was that of some of Christendom's most recognized and acclaimed evangelists and apologists e.g. John and Charles Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Francis Asbury, et al. Who of these ever acknowledged, let alone endorsed, Grantham Killingworth's dispensational speculations, or anything else he may have produced? Were his speculations ever subjected to any tests of historic orthodoxy?

If so, we'd like to see the results.

From Wikipedia:
"Grantham Killingworth (1699–1778) was an English lay Baptist controversialist."

This question has zero bearing on the subject. The subject is whether or not Darby got his Dispensational ideas from Manuel Lacunza. The writings of Grantham Killingworth, which were published 14 years before Lacunza's work was published in Spanish, and of Lewis Way, whose writings were published at least 12 years before Lacunza's work was published in English, both of these significantly predated the English publication of Lacunza's work. I have cited these two writers here because I have personally reviewed the entirety of what both of these men wrote. So I can personally testify that both of them clearly described the main elements of dispensationalim. I have published on Lewis Way, and am working on a publication about Grantham Killingworth. I have also published much about the work of William Lowth, who wrote a hundred years before Darby. But these are far from the only ones who published such work in the two hundred years preceding Darby. William C. Watson has cataloged dozens of them in his book,"Dispensationalism Before Darby." But I have only written about the works I have personally examined.

Darby made it very clear that he had personally read at least most of the currently available work on the subject. His comments include explicit reference to the work of William Lowth, and an apparent reference to the work of Lewis Way. So it is unreasonable to conclude that he had not studied at least some of these many other writings.

 

[jgr]

This question has zero bearing on the subject. The subject is whether or not Darby got his Dispensational ideas from Manuel Lacunza. The writings of Grantham Killingworth, which were published 14 years before Lacunza's work was published in Spanish, and of Lewis Way, whose writings were published at least 12 years before Lacunza's work was published in English, both of these significantly predated the English publication of Lacunza's work. I have cited these two writers here because I have personally reviewed the entirety of what both of these men wrote. So I can personally testify that both of them clearly described the main elements of dispensationalim. I have published on Lewis Way, and am working on a publication about Grantham Killingworth. I have also published much about the work of William Lowth, who wrote a hundred years before Darby. But these are far from the only ones who published such work in the two hundred years preceding Darby. William C. Watson has cataloged dozens of them in his book,"Dispensationalism Before Darby." But I have only written about the works I have personally examined.

Darby made it very clear that he had personally read at least most of the currently available work on the subject. His comments include explicit reference to the work of William Lowth, and an apparent reference to the work of Lewis Way. So it is unreasonable to conclude that he had not studied at least some of these many other writings.

Sure. But if there was no independent validation by any of the recognized peer scriptural authorities of the day, who cares?