There is no such thing as a "rapture" for believers!!

FreeGrace2 said:

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
I'm wondering what your main point is here. Could you summarize?

Ok, thanks. We done now?

Click to expand...

As you wish.

JAL said:

This fact afforded Jesus the convenience of declaring the Eucharist (in the verse you cited) as a "new covenant" for the church. This had the practical value of officially terminating the old covenant ceremonies and thus, in the long haul, beneficially pushed both Jews and Gentiles in a better direction. This new covenant (the Eucharist) IS for the church. I'm pretty sure classic dispensationalism agrees with me on that point.

Click to expand...

This is what the theologian Charles Ryrie wrote prior to his death in 2016....

"If the church is fulfilling Israel's promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in the Scriptures, then [dispensational] premillennialism is condemned." (Ryrie, THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE NEW COVENANT TO PREMILLENNIALISM [unpublished Master's thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary 1947), p. 31])

Although he wrote that in 1947, he said the same thing on a TV show that was pretty soon before he died in 2016.

ShineyDays2 said:

This is what the theologian Charles Ryrie wrote prior to his death in 2016....

"If the church is fulfilling Israel's promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in the Scriptures, then [dispensational] premillennialism is condemned." (Ryrie, THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE NEW COVENANT TO PREMILLENNIALISM [unpublished Master's thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary 1947), p. 31])

Although he wrote that in 1947, he said the same thing on a TV show that was pretty soon before he died in 2016.

Click to expand...

I'm having difficulty understanding what he meant by that.

I think he's emphasizing the need to preserve the distinction between Israel and the church. If so, I agree with him.

JAL said:

I'm having difficulty understanding what he meant by that.

Click to expand...

Requote...."If the church is fulfilling Israel's promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in the Scriptures, then [dispensational] premillennialism is condemned."

The way I understand Ryrie to be saying it is..."If the church has fulfilled the Jeremiah 31 prophesy as contained in the New Covenant, then dispensationalism/premillennialism is condemned because then there is no distinction between the Jews and the church because dispensationalism makes it clear that their whole system depends on Israel as being "put on the shelf" so to speak because they were prophesied by Jeremiah to be the recipients of the New Covenant; not the church.

There are people on another site that adamantly believe that at the Lords supper Jesus intended to say that it was for the Jews sometime in the future, therefore traditional dispensationalists are denying the New Covenant is in effect for us now.

ShineyDays2 said:

Requote...."If the church is fulfilling Israel's promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in the Scriptures, then [dispensational] premillennialism is condemned."

The way I understand Ryrie to be saying it is..."If the church has fulfilled the Jeremiah 31 prophesy as contained in the New Covenant, then dispensationalism/premillennialism is condemned because then there is no distinction between the Jews and the church because dispensationalism makes it clear that their whole system depends on Israel as being "put on the shelf" so to speak because they were prophesied by Jeremiah to be the recipients of the New Covenant; not the church.

Click to expand...

I agree that's what he apparently meant. I sort of gathered that after the second examination of his words. I also agree with dispensationalism that Israel has been put on the shelf (per Romans 11) and will not receive their New Covenant until heaven and/or the 1,000 year millennium.

There are people on another site that adamantly believe that at the Lords supper Jesus intended to say that it was for the Jews sometime in the future, therefore traditional dispensationalists are denying the New Covenant is in effect for us now.

Click to expand...

Right but, as I said, dispensationalists do allow that the Last Supper inaugurated the Eucharist as a "new covenant" that IS for the church, separate and distinct from Israel's New Covenant prophesied in Jeremiah. Here too, I agree with them.

@ShineyDays2; @bbbbbbb; @FreeGrace2;

I hate eschatology. The precious few times I've visited this topic I end up feeling more confused the longer I reflect on it. Rev 20 doesn't seem to fit well in any system because it's style looks too literal to dismiss as allegory, and yet it speaks of a first and second resurrection hard to reconcile with the rapture.

In re-visiting this frustration I'm led back to a theory that I drew years ago which at least offers a possible STARTING POINT for reconciling Rev 20 with the rapture.

The theory is that Rev 20 uses terms such as "resurrection" and "came to life" in a more narrow sense than face-value suggests. (Maybe this is obvious to many readers but it has generally not been obvious to me). He seems to be using such terms in the very strict sense of landed-ness. He's not talking about merely RECEIVING a transformed body. He's also referring to the POSITIONING of that body on land. Therefore:

1. He describes the martyred saints - the beheaded and those who refused the mark of the beast. He says the first "resurrection" (landed-ness) is them coming to reign 1,000 years.

2. The second resurrection, then, refers to the REST of the saints acquiring landed-ness. This has NOTHING to do with the 2nd coming or rapture. Most likely what's implied here is landed-ness on a new earth arguably created at the end of the 1,000 years.

To summarize: Rev 20 doesn't care WHEN all these saints received their transformed body. His REAL concern is when those bodies would come to live again (in the usual earthly sense), that is, when they get landed again. That's not a complete solution to eschatology but possibly a good starting point.

Secondly, to make sense of all these passages, we probably shouldn't INSIST upon limiting the GWT judgment to a single session. Sometimes Scripture uses language that blurs multiple sessions into one. Examples:

1. Genesis 2 speaks of the "day" when the Lord made the heavens and earth.

2. Mat 24:14 says "the gospel must first be preached to all nations. Then the end will come", as if that's a last-hour event when, in fact, it's an ongoing event already transpiring now.

JAL said:

Right but, as I said, dispensationalists do allow that the Last Supper inaugurated the Eucharist as a "new covenant" that IS for the church, separate and distinct from Israel's New Covenant prophesied in Jeremiah. Here too, I agree with them.

Click to expand...

Sorry to confuse you more but the Jeremiah 31 New Covenant is not still in the OT waiting for the Jewish people to accept Christ as their Savior and so Jesus decided to make a second New Covenant with the Christian church. It simply does not work that way and that is why it seems to me that your belief system sounds like "a little bit of this and a little bit of that."

I personally do not try to make sense out of the extreme symbolism of the book of Revelation because some of my favorite theologians, who are very, very good on most all things can't even agree on most all of the confusing text. Not to say there aren't clear and precise areas in the Book at all though. But if the more knowledgeable theologians can't agree, why do I think I can figure out those symbolic terms so spend very little time trying to figure it out?

Most people get hung up on trying to put the chapters in chronological order but that is impossible to do. It's a lot about scenes that are sometime "showing the same event but at several different angles" like you might see in a movie. You never see the camera standing still in a scene for any more than a few seconds before they switch to a different angle. That is why so many get confused. They want a chronological order to a book that is not intended to be viewed that way.

As far as Rev 20 goes, I actually do not have a problem with that chapter like so many other people do because of Matthew 27. That is one of the most neglected and most controversial 2 verses that very good theologians either ignore altogether or tread lightly on but I have studied it a great deal and believe that Rev 20 is resolved when Matthew 27 is taken into consideration.

Bottom line is, I give top priority to what Jesus Himself spoke out of His mouth directly to the disciples while he was on earth because when he was teaching his disciples certain things like the Sermon on the Mount, he was also talking to us today. Then I look at Acts and then the epistles because what they wrote about was built on the foundation of what Jesus taught in the gospels but with more details.

I had a discussion with our pastor not too long ago about Revelation and I told him that the way I look at it was that "if you put 100 of the very best theologians in a room and told them to write down what each one of those symbolic terms were in the entire book, you would not be able to find even two that could agree 100% of the book!" He laughed and said "I agree." And then there was a man that was sitting on the steps of a restaurant reading Revelation and as a man walked past he noticed the man reading Revelation and so he asked him if he understood everything in that book. The man said, "Sir, yes I do!" The guy laughed but asked him what he thought the overall thought was and the man simply said "God wins!" That is what Revelation is supposed to mean to us. God wins over good and evil.

Revelation was a book that was written between the year 95 A.D., 25 years after the destruction of Jerusalem by the last apostle to be alive (John) and at a time when the Jews were being persecuted and most believe it was by the Romans that were in control of Israel. The Jews were used to hearing and talking in a poetic style so that the Romans could not figure out that they were talking about them. But the book overal is simply that "its all about Jesus."

ShineyDays2 said:

Sorry to confuse you more but the Jeremiah 31 New Covenant is not still in the OT waiting for the Jewish people to accept Christ as their Savior and so Jesus decided to make a second New Covenant with the Christian church. It simply does not work that way and that is why it seems to me that your belief system sounds like "a little bit of this and a little bit of that."

Click to expand...

Covenant Theology is substantially more than "a little bit of this and a little bit of that." It's a well-established position that seems logically impregnable. That's what I'm building on here. God has always interacted with His people via covenants. Every covenant made is a new covenant.

Jeremiah 31 New Covenant is not still in the OT waiting for the Jewish people to accept Christ as their Savior and so Jesus decided to make a second New Covenant with the Christian church.

Click to expand...

You make it sound like something out of the ordinary fabricated randomly. Not at all. God has been making new covenants throughout history. (Although it so happens that ALL His new covenants are consistent with the One Covenant of Grace).

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't postulate the Eucharist as an interim-substitute for Israel's New Covenant. It's simply one of God's multitudinous new covenants to guide, direct, shepherd, and reassure His people, just like He has always done.

ShineyDays2 said:

I personally do not try to make sense out of the extreme symbolism of the book of Revelation because some of my favorite theologians, who are very, very good on most all things can't even agree on most all of the confusing text. Not to say there aren't clear and precise areas in the Book at all though. But if the more knowledgeable theologians can't agree, why do I think I can figure out those symbolic terms so spend very little time trying to figure it out?

Most people get hung up on trying to put the chapters in chronological order but that is impossible to do. It's a lot about scenes that are sometime "showing the same event but at several different angles" like you might see in a movie. You never see the camera standing still in a scene for any more than a few seconds before they switch to a different angle. That is why so many get confused. They want a chronological order to a book that is not intended to be viewed that way.

As far as Rev 20 goes, I actually do not have a problem with that chapter like so many other people do because of Matthew 27. That is one of the most neglected and most controversial 2 verses that very good theologians either ignore altogether or tread lightly on but I have studied it a great deal and believe that Rev 20 is resolved when Matthew 27 is taken into consideration.

Bottom line is, I give top priority to what Jesus Himself spoke out of His mouth directly to the disciples while he was on earth because when he was teaching his disciples certain things like the Sermon on the Mount, he was also talking to us today. Then I look at Acts and then the epistles because what they wrote about was built on the foundation of what Jesus taught in the gospels but with more details.

I had a discussion with our pastor not too long ago about Revelation and I told him that the way I look at it was that "if you put 100 of the very best theologians in a room and told them to write down what each one of those symbolic terms were in the entire book, you would not be able to find even two that could agree 100% of the book!" He laughed and said "I agree." And then there was a man that was sitting on the steps of a restaurant reading Revelation and as a man walked past he noticed the man reading Revelation and so he asked him if he understood everything in that book. The man said, "Sir, yes I do!" The guy laughed but asked him what he thought the overall thought was and the man simply said "God wins!" That is what Revelation is supposed to mean to us. God wins over good and evil.

Revelation was a book that was written between the year 95 A.D., 25 years after the destruction of Jerusalem by the last apostle to be alive (John) and at a time when the Jews were being persecuted and most believe it was by the Romans that were in control of Israel. The Jews were used to hearing and talking in a poetic style so that the Romans could not figure out that they were talking about them. But the book overal is simply that "its all about Jesus."

Click to expand...

I agree that Revelation probably isn't fully chronological. I also agree it is far too confusing for us all to agree on what it says - we'd all need plenty of Direct Revelation to reliably understand it. But I do think at least a good portion of it is literal.

JAL said:

You make it sound like something out of the ordinary fabricated randomly. Not at all. God has been making new covenants throughout history.

Click to expand...

Not true. Go back to Genesis 3:15 and the tree of life in the center of the garden. That was a symbol of the tree that grows both Jews and Gentile converts all the way through the OT to the cross and into Rev 22.

That "tree never stopped anyone, Jew or Gentile, from being grafted onto that "tree of life as it grew through the OT." The Abrahamic* covenant was the first covenant and all others were built upon that one. The New Covenant was only "new" in the sense that Christ blood was shed and the old sacrificial system was put to an end permanently.....which is why there is "no rapture, no new temple, no re-do of sacrifices, no separations of a Christian church and National Israel, or another covenant for the Jews later on. That covenant at the Last Supper was the LAST covenant God made. The book of Revelation 22:18 says the book is closed. He is not going to open another book just for the National Jews. (*I made an error in using the word Mosaic covenant.)

You don't seem to understand that "Not all Israel is Israel."

Do a word study of "my people." The term goes from the OT Jews right into the NT christian church. God's "people" are now Jews and Gentiles as in Ephesians 2. If anyone dares to read Ephesians 2 properly it begs the question..."If Paul says that the Jews and Gentiles are all one in the body of Christ, what of the above is necessary after this?"

ShineyDays2 said:

Not true. Go back to Genesis 3:15 and the tree of life in the center of the garden. That was a symbol of the tree that grows both Jews and Gentile converts all the way through the OT to the cross and into Rev 22.

That "tree never stopped anyone, Jew or Gentile, from being grafted onto that "tree of life."

Click to expand...

What does the pre-Fall Tree of Life have to do with anything in redemptive economy? You seem to be rambling.

The Mosaic covenant was the first covenant and all others were built upon that one.

Click to expand...

This is your way of talking me out of Covenant Theology? It's not much convincing. The Abrahamic covenant came before the Mosaic covenant - in fact it came before Abraham because it's the Father-Son covenant per Gal 3:16, in fact promised to the Son before creation (Tit 1:2).

The New Covenant...

Click to expand...

is made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Which one are you?

...was only "new" in the sense that Christ blood was shed. That covenant at the Last Supper was the LAST covenant God made.

Click to expand...

Ultimately it wasn't new at all since the Covenant of Grace is the overriding covenant. You are making sheer assertions.

The book of Revelation 22:18 says the book is closed. He is not going to open another book just for the National Jews.

Click to expand...

You're confusing the closing of the canon with covenant-based economy. The two aren't coterminous.

You don't seem to understand that "Not all Israel is Israel."

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that's your downfall.

FreeGrace2 said:

Why? What would be the point?

Click to expand...

Traditionally, Covenant Theology abolishes the distinction between Israel and the church, claiming that the church is the true Israel and that all God's promises to her are fulfilled in the church. Romans 11 flies in the face of that conflation - there we see Israel is still God's elect distinct from the Gentiles. Thus while I do hold to Covenant Theology in large part, I differ on that point.

FreeGrace2 said:

Actually, the post trib rapture view fits perfectly with Rev 20. Meaning, it is "when He comes" per 1 Cor 15:23 that Jesus resurrects and gathers up (rapture) to the clouds all believers, or "those who belongs to Him", again per 1 Cor 15:23.

Click to expand...

I'm still sold on post-trib rapture. No real disagreement so far.

What is an error is the idea that the "rapture" includes a trip to heaven. That is NOT mentioned anywhere in Scripture, including ALL the so-called rapture verses.

Click to expand...

Again, the argument from silence doesn't prove your point that we all come back to earth. Silence is, well, silence. Sheer assertion. I think you have a good theory but I'm not committed to it yet.

One change I've made. I'm now fairly committed to the claim that the still-alive unbelievers do not go, at rapture time, to GTW judgment but remain on earth to populate the millennium. So I see at least 2 parties in the 1,000 years.

1. martyrs.

2. still-living unbelievers.

This verse is not referring to lifestyle, but who has the imputed righteousness of Christ which is through faith in Him.

Click to expand...

I'm not connecting your dots on this statement.

And, Rev 20 specifically speaks of the resurrection of the Trib martyrs as the FIRST one.

So, the ONLY OTHER resurrection is the one at the end of Rev 20; which is the GWT judgment of ALL unbelievers.

Click to expand...

Good theory and I’m currently very drawn to it but I can’t quite embrace it because I find ShineyDays2’s post at 356 very convincing. The verses in that post seem to strongly suggest a GWT judgment immediate upon Christ’s return, instead of a 1,000 year wait. Actually I would love to become convinced of your position because it seems to simplify and unruffle the flow of Rev 20. I’m just not quite there yet.

2 Thess 2:1 - Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters,


Red words are the Second Advent. Blue words are the rapture.

Click to expand...

Admittedly silent on whether we ultimately go fully up or come right back down but, personally, these words strike me as going fully up. I don't see that opinion changing no matter how much you disagree. But I won't say that I'm definitively correct for sure.

But it does, clearly. The martyred saints are resurrected to reign with King Jesus AFTER the Trib.

Click to expand...

I'm still committed to post-trib like you.

Generally in my life I haven't been in great health and have been pretty much too exhausted to read my Bible for the last 30 years. This makes it especially hard for me to evaluate ideas new to me, notably the various eschatological stances.

ShineyDays2 said:

The Mosaic covenant was the first covenant and all others were built upon that one.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct! Sorry, but I was thinking of the 10 commandments and Moses. But yes, God brought Abraham out of the land of Ur of the Chaldeans. It was a slip-up not an attempt to talk you out of anything whatsoever.

JAL said:

This is your way of talking me out of Covenant Theology? It's not much convincing. The Abrahamic covenant came before the Mosaic covenant - in fact it came before Abraham because it's the Father-Son covenant per Gal 3:16, in fact promised to the Son before creation (Tit 1:2).

Click to expand...

@FreeGrace2,

Regarding whether we go up or come back down: I think you've become so immersed in eschatology as a formal discipline that you've lost sight of the most natural reading of the text. That's why you can't see my point of view. Not that the "most natural reading" is necessarily correct, but it does have a hold on me.

Let me try to reawaken your natural perspective. When I first got saved, I thought I was supposed to go out and witness. And so I did. When I confronted people, I had conversations like this:

"What happens when you die?"
"I go to heaven because I have faith in Christ."

"What happens when Jesus comes back, if you are still alive?"
"Same thing. I go to heaven because I have faith in Christ."

You see? That's the NATURAL perspective of the Christian. Here's the sort of conversation that YOU are envisioning:

"What happens when you die?"
"Jesus thrusts me up into mid-air for a moment, then thrusts me back to the earth for 1,000 years."

"What happens when Jesus comes back, if you are still alive?"
"Same thing."

At this point the guy walks away muttering to himself: "Christians are completely looney!"

It's precisely because your theory looks like the completely looney option to me, that I would have at least expected Paul to MENTION it if it were true. You are saying that MY view requires explicit mention. On the contrary, I would think that your view calls for explicit mention. That's my reservation here. I admit this is just my gut reaction but it still has a powerful hold on me.