Alchemist said:
Therefore, I would like to talk about some of your other doctrines. You claim to be a premillennialist; that is, one who believes that sometime in the future, Christ will reign on Earth for a thousand years. However;
- Jesus himself said that his kingdom was "not of this world" (John 18:36), so to suggest his kingdom will be here on Earth (imho) is contradicting God himself.
- In his epistle to the Colossians, Paul writes, "He has delivered us from the power of the darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love"; in other words, as Christians, we are already living in Jesus' kingdom through our communion of the Holy Spirit. The kingdom is not in the future, it is right now.
Hello there! I would be more than happy to respond to what you have said here. Lets look at your first bulleted point.
John 18:36 does indeed say not of this world, but does it say it won't be in this world?
Lets take an example first, Christ said He was not of this world, yet He was in this world. By your first bullet point, you indicated that Christ might just be a liar because of this statement He had made.
First off, the word 'of', which is ek in greek, means 'out of.' This has to do with origins. So what Christ is saying in John 18:36 is that His Kingdom does not originate here in our world. And this is true, because before this world was, Jesus Christ Was. Remeber the statement He made, I AM?
Your point you made is invalid.
Your second point, I have no clue what it is you are trying to make a point of. Those who live in Christ are apart of His Kingdom now. But does this mean that He won't have a Kingdom in the future as well? And does this mean it won't be here or wherever He so chooses?
A premillennialist doesn't disagree with being in God's Kingdom when saved. They just believe that Christ will literally be walking here on earth as He did once before for a thousand years before satan and his followers are cast into the lake of fire.
Now, I disagree with the premillennialist view point, but I see where they can get this view point.
Alchemist said:
You also claim to be a pre-tribulationist; that is, one who believes that the tribulation will occur before the Rapture. Alas, this principle was never believed by any Christian until at least the 1830's, in fact, the idea was first spread by Margaret McDonald, a young Scottish woman who had a 'divine revelation' in which she saw people being 'caught up' in the air. And for good reason: it is rather anti-Biblical;
- Paul's first epistle to the Thessalonians clearly states, "... we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will decend... and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the cloud to meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thess. 4:15-17). What happened to the Christians leaving first?
- In Peter's second epistle, he states that "the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare" (2 Peter 3:10). This passage clearly states that the end of the world and the second coming of Christ will happen simultaneously, not 1000 years apart.
- In the Gospels, Jesus states that at the end, both good and evil men will be on the Earth, and both will be judged at the same time; "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats" (Matt. 25:31-32). This flatly contradicts the concept of Christians being taken out of the world to be judged, as apparently there is one judgement when Christ comes to Earth.
- [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Also, in his prayer to His Father, Jesus prays, "My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one" (John 17:15). Why would God take his people out of the earth before the last days, despite His holy and beloved Son asking Him specifically not to?
First off, you are incorrect about Margaret being the first to spread this thought of a pre-trib rapture. Epharaem the Syrian said, in 373 AD, "For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."
It is John Darby who made the pre-trib rapture well known by his preaching.
There were also several scholars before Maragret and John who also wrote about a pre-trib rapture.
In your second bullet on the argument against the 1000 years, this is to be after Christ's second coming. Just for your info.
Your third bullet is a weak point against a pre-trib rapture view. The reason it is, is because at the time of judgment all will have been ressurected and gathered to the judgment.
Your fourth point is also weak. If we were to apply this thinking then you will need to answer why God takes His people out of this world each day. People still die. Also Christ is not speaking of the last days in this verse.
Yet again, I don't agree with the pre-trib rapture, but I can see how one sees this view point.
Alchemist said:
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now, I mean no offense to you or anyone here who follows these beliefs. However, the fact is that these doctrines are not well supported by the Bible, and yet you believe them. Sure, they could be true, although by examining the passages above, and observing the fact that the Church has been teaching a post-tribulation rapture for 1800 years longer than pretribulationism has even been around, I doubt it. So the question is posed: does doctrine really matter to you? For someone who is unwilling to accept evolution because it is (apparently) anti-Biblical, you seem willing to accept doctrines that I think have much more against them in the Bible than evolution does. Indeed, it is highly posible than I am wrong, and that your pre-trib, pre-millenialist, fundamentalist theology is correct. But when it comes down to these issues, I trust what makes sense in the Bible, what makes sense in the real world, and more importantly, what the Church as a whole believes. And, as the Church as a whole does not accept premillenialism, or a pre-tribulation rapture, the Church as a whole does not accept young-earth creationism.
[/font]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Well you are again wrong, there were parts of the church that did believe a pre-trib rapture, [/font]Epharaem the Syrian for one.
Actually, there is quite a bit in the Bible that just doesn't reconcile with evolution. THe only way you can do so is to create this psuedo-argument that the Scriptures are not to be taken literally in the area's where there is disagreement with evolution. Hence, the push on this site for an allegorical view of Genesis. The push for this reading alone states that the person is aware that a literal reading is in contradiction with evolution. So then we have the world, or science now dictates how we are suppose to read the Bible.
Hm, there is a large church base in the United States that does support a pre-trib rapture, and pre-mil view point. But I guess you are more concerned with what the Catholics think on these issues. Are you aware that some Catholic Bibles now teach that evolution is the truth? You can find this on the inside cover of a few of them. I suppose that would be an uplifting statement for many evolutionists here.
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]
Alchemist said:
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you do not want to associate with me because of doctrinal issues, then I must accept your decision. But please excuse me if I think there is a lot more to the Bible and Christianity than just listening to what 'the Bible says'; or even worse, telling myself that my own interpretation is infallible. The Apostles had a thing or two to say about that as well...[/font]
"... no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20)
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Peace,
Alchemist
[/font]
I believe mhess has spent a lot of time speaking and debating with evolutionists that he is now tired of it. His wording may not have been the best, but then tell me who here has not always used the best wording?
Mhess has already received numerous people correcting him and just being rude to him. Why keep adding to it? If you want to truly follow Christ, then don't look for an apology, don't ask for one, assume Mhess didn't mean anything bad of it, and just forgive him. Ask God to bless him and move on to the next thread.
As for you 2 Peter 1:20 quote, you are way out of context. Read the next verse and you will understand what Peter is referring to. Peter is speaking of prophets.
2 Peter 1:20-21
"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
Is there any point? Here is my exposition on this subject: http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/genesis.htm.
