truth of the "rapture"

[thereselittleflower]

Very strange video clip!

He was an internet sensatioin.

 

[Stryder06]

Well, now that Stryder06 has abandoned Ellen White's eschatological meanderings

Getting back on topic is always a good thing, but my eschatological understanding remains the same.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Getting back on topic is always a good thing, but my eschatological understanding remains the same.

But where does your eschatological understanding come from?

 

[Stryder06]

But where does your eschatological understanding come from?

Scripture.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Scripture.

So your private interpretation of scripture? Or someone else's?

 

[Stryder06]

So your private interpretation of scripture? Or someone else's?

I don't do the whole "private interpretation" thing. That's another one of those phrases that get's thrown around far too often. There is a proper interpretation of scripture, and there's an improper one.

 

[ViaCrucis]

1. Justin does not mention who was opposed.
2. Many during the early period of he church disagreed with a plethora of apostolic teachings. They went on to form cults like the ones that Ireneaus addresses in Agains Heresies.
3. Justin did not mention what the other beliefs were so you are just assuming that it was amil.

Justin is responding to Trypho's question, namely, that Jerusalem would be rebuilt and Christ, the saints, prophets, patriarchs (et al) would be gathered together and dwell there. This we can probably safely admit is in reference to Justin's Chiliasm. What Justin says is that there are those who do not agree, and they are counted among the pious, faithful members of the Church.

Justin therefore states that there were many non-Chiliasts in the Church, and that these were not heretics, apostates, or schismatics--but faithful, apostolic Christians.

It still demonstrates your claim that everyone prior to the 3rd century was a Chiliast to be false, since Justin admits that there were many non-Chiliasts in the Church; he also is of the opinion that these are faithful, pious Christians.

If Justin is of the opinion that Christ and the saints will dwell in Jerusalem for a thousand years (Chiliasm), what would disagreement of this opinion be? It may not be Amillennialism, though that is the only historic view with which I am familiar that would sensibly fill in the gap.

4. There is no extant text to prove that amil was even taught prior to the 3rd century.

"And on this account we believe that there will be a resurrection of bodies after the consummation of all things; not, as the Stoics affirm, according to the return of certain cycles, the same things being produced and destroyed for no useful purpose, but a resurrection once for all, when our periods of existence are completed, and in consequence solely of the constitution of things under which men alone live, for the purpose of passing judgment upon them." - Tatian, Address to the Greeks, c. 170 AD (Ch. VI)

There resurrection happens, at the end, on the last day. Not preceding a thousand years, but at the consummation of everything.

"And God showed great kindness to man in this, that He did not suffer him to remain in sin for ever; but, as it were, by a kind of banishment, cast him out of Paradise, in order that, having by punishment expiated, within an appointed time, the sin, and having been disciplined, he should afterwards be restored. Wherefore also, when man had been formed in this world, it is mystically written in Genesis, as if he had been twice placed in Paradise; so that the one was fulfilled when he was placed there, and the second will be fulfilled after the resurrection and judgment." - Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, c. 180 AD (Book II, Ch. XXVI)

The renewal or restoration of creation as Paradise, occurs after "the resurrection and judgment".

Perhaps these are not clear cut "Non-millennialist" statements, but they do indicate a belief that Christ's coming, the resurrection, and the judgment are all entwined into a singular event.

5. The passage that you quoted from Ireneaus is speaking of the time when the 10 kings will rise and the antichrist will come to power which is prior to the tribulation. It has no bearing on the rapture.

Yet Irenaeus still anticipates the Church to endure Antichrist, not be removed. Irenaeus never suggests the Church shall be removed; but rather suggests the Church shall endure and persevere through the machinations of Antichrist.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[thereselittleflower]

I don't do the whole "private interpretation" thing. That's another one of those phrases that get's thrown around far too often. There is a proper interpretation of scripture, and there's an improper one.

Ok so how do you know what is proper interpretation vs improper interpretation of scripture?

 

[VictorC]

Well, now that Stryder06 has abandoned Ellen White's eschatological meanderings <snip>

You're so gullible!

and now that we're all in agreement that if you ask a Catholic what the "official" position of the Catholic Church is on some matter you are very likely to get a reply that refers to or quotes from official Catholic teaching, we can proceed to the core issue in this thread .... why the dispensationalist rapture theory is not biblical

I'm neither Catholic nor Adventist, and yet I agree with the conclusion that there isn't Biblical support for a pre-tribulation rapture. The notion of a rapture preceding the first resurrection violates the timing mentioned in Revelation 20:5-6, which is clearly after the tribulation.

1 Thessalonians 4
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Jesus comes from Heaven.
The dead redeemed purchased possession of Christ are raised from the dead.
We meet Him in the atmosphere (the raised dead + the generation living at the second advent).
We continue with Him toward His destination to Mount Olivet (Zechariah 14:4, Acts 1:11-12), on the great and terrible Day of the LORD as prophesied by Enoch (Jude 1:14-15).

I simply don't agree with Dispensationalism.

 

[Stryder06]

Ok so how do you know what is proper interpretation vs improper interpretation of scripture?

The Spirit is not contrarious to himself. If the understanding comes at the expense of breaking the harmony of the scriptures, than I know that my understanding is wrong.

 

[thereselittleflower]

The Spirit is not contrarious to himself. If the understanding comes at the expense of breaking the harmony of the scriptures, than I know that my understanding is wrong.

Yet but your own admission, there is right interpretation and wrong interpretation.

Those who interpret wrongly see themselves doing so in harmony with the scriptures.

So how does one know their interpretation is in harmony with the scriptures?

 

[VictorC]

Yet but your own admission, there is right interpretation and wrong interpretation.

Those who interpret wrongly see themselves doing so in harmony with the scriptures.

So how does one know their interpretation is in harmony with the scriptures?

We all know that Stryder06 is a seventh-day Adventist. As such, he isn't likely to tell you the rules that he follows for his model of eschatology.

It is from the standpoint of the light that has come through the Spirit of Prophecy (Mrs. White&#8217;s writings) that the question will be considered, believing as we do that the Spirit of Prophecy is the only infallible interpreter of Bible principles, since it is that Christ, through this agency, giving real meaning of his own words. (from the tract The Mark of the Beast, p. 1, G. A. Irwin, General Conference President)

How advantaged the Seventh-day Adventist Church is to have a modern inspired interpreter of both the Old and New Testaments! Surely there is every logical reason to give the inspired interpretation top priority in arriving at our understanding of the world today. (Sabbath School Quarterly, April-June 1976, page 92, Lesson Author Gordon M. Hyde, Editor W. Richard Lesher)

The Bible is an infallible guide but it needs to be infallibly interpreted, to avoid confusion and division. When will the people of God cease trusting in their own wisdom? When will they come to the place where they will cease to measure, construe, and interpret by their own reason what God says to them through His appointed channel? When we come to the place where we place no trust in man or in the wisdom of man, but unquestionably accept and act upon what God says through this gift, then will the spirit of prophecy as set before us in the Bible and confirmed among us and become in fact a counselor, guide and final court of appeal among God's people. (Adventist Review, June 3. 1971, page 6, The Source of Final Appeal, By Roderick S. Owen)

Seventh-day Adventists are uniquely fortunate in approaching the question of the inspiration of the prophets. We are not left to find our way, drawing all our conclusions from writings of two thousand years and more ago that have come down to us through varied transcriptions and translations. With us it is an almost contemporary matter, for we have had a prophet in our midst. It is generally granted by the careful student of her works that the experience of Ellen White was not different from that of the prophets of old ... (Arthur L. White, The Ellen White Writings, Chapter 1, p. 15, Toward a Factual Concept of Inspiration, Adventists Uniquely Fortunate)​

The SDA is not permitted to trust in his own wisdom regarding interpretation.
It was all codified long ago. And, there is no changing it because Ellen White is dead.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Stryder06 I don't do the whole "private interpretation" thing. That's another one of those phrases that get's thrown around far too often.

There is a proper interpretation of scripture, and there's an improper one.

Ok so how do you know what is proper interpretation vs improper interpretation of scripture?

Indeed, how?

http://www.christianforums.com/t4483158-16/
"...no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

quote OP:

"... no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:21

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." 2 Timothy 3:15

These verses show that the holy scriptures do not need to be interpreted by anyone, for your sake, but that every man and women has known the holy scriptures since you were a child. All it takes is for you to read them, and learn them. Other people can help you, but I would suggest you read what the Bible says, and not let other's do your study for you. Man always has an aggenda, so let God speak to your heart, and leave man to his own demise.

.

 

[seeking Christ]

I'm not saying Jesus lied. . but if someone says the apostles did not receive the all truth promised, then, by direct implication, they are saying Jesus lied.

If Jesus did not lie, then ALL TRUTH was given to the Apostles which means ALL of it was revealed to them, so nothing more is left to be revealed.

There is no way you can make Scripture say this, but you have every right to believe that if you want to and I respect that.

 

[seeking Christ]

it is obvious on it's face to anyone who makes an honest read of the document presented as "proof", that there was no agreement at all on the matter

1. You claim the Apostles not only received "all truth," but that Jesus actually promised this to them.

2. You state here that amil was not agreed upon, well over 100 years later.

3. You are forced to either admit your church made up a position via submitting to human closure, or your statement in 1 is pure falsehood.

This is known as check, and mate. You have no way to wiggle out of error being propagated by your infallible church.

 

[seeking Christ]

sorry .. seeing the word "chiliasm" and "chiliast" in a post too much was pretty funny . now to look up what that means .

It means this, and those that make it:

(Chiliasm is enthusiasm for the chiliast)

Taken from this thread here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7717865/

 

[thereselittleflower]

There is no way you can make Scripture say this, but you have every right to believe that if you want to and I respect that.

Ignoring the obvious conclusions of Jesus words is not going to make the full import of his words go away . .. ever.



Either Jesus meant that the Apostles would be led into ALL truth - and if all then nothing would be lacking or it would not be all - or Jesus lied.


Which is it?

 

[thereselittleflower]

1. You claim the Apostles not only received "all truth," but that Jesus actually promised this to them.

Did Jesus speak these words or not?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
​

Who did he say those words to? The TWELVE disciples . and only the twelve:

Matthew 26:17 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?” 18 He replied, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.’ “ 19 So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover.
20 When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. 21 And while they were eating, he said, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me.”
​

Now, did Jesus not say those words to the TWELVE : "he will guide you into all truth"

Are you suggesting the words of scripture are wrong?

2. You state here that amil was not agreed upon, well over 100 years later.

3. You are forced to either admit your church made up a position via submitting to human closure, or your statement in 1 is pure falsehood.

One does not follow from the other. How do you move logically from your argument to your conclusion?

This is known as check, and mate. You have no way to wiggle out of error being propagated by your infallible church.

No, this is known as poor use of logic.

The apostles taught Jesus' second coming, the resurrection of the dead, that who are alive when Jesus returns would be translated - changed never to experience the death of the body, that Jesus is reigning now over the kings of the earth, that the Church was facing great tribulation was evident in the every day life of christians.

Whether or not amillenialism was agreed upon by all is really immaterial. The Church was under persecution. The Church had bigger fish to fry than worry about whether everyone agreed on the finer points of eschatological doctrines. That people do not agree in the first century is not proof that something was not taught. There are other factors that adequately explain why this disagreement existed. So no, there is no "check and mate." You missed by a longshot only looking superficially at the problem, and not looking into any confounding factors to your corollary.

 

[seeking Christ]

One does not follow from the other.

Of course it does. Amil was something there was "no agreement upon," over 100 years later, in your own words. Therefore Jesus did not give the Apostles truth on this point. Either there is no truth on this point that can be known but your church simply made it up due to being uncomfortable admitting it simply doesn't know, or Jesus didn't deliver all truth to the Apostles as you interpret Scripture to say. It has to be one or the other, you can't have it both ways.

Checkmate.

The apostles taught Jesus' second coming, the resurrection of the dead, that who are alive when Jesus returns would be translated - changed never to experience the death of the body, that Jesus is reigning now over the kings of the earth, that the Church was facing great tribulation was evident in the every day life of christians.

I'm glad you have the sense to agree on these things, but it really has no bearing on our discussion here.

Whether or not amillenialism was agreed upon by all is really immaterial.

So you're content that amil is not truth, and your church just made it up. Ok.

So no, there is no "check and mate." You missed by a longshot only looking superficially at the problem, and not looking into any confounding factors to your corollary.

Jesus teaching the Apostles an amil position would've been a mighty confounding factor to any chiliast. How you overlooked that I don't know, but perhaps you should consider things like that before you go labelling others superficial.

What you have to accept is that Jesus did not teach the Apostles amil, and by your own standards that excludes it from being "all truth." Why then your church teaches it I'll leave for you to decipher, but clearly it isn't related to the original church as you claim. These are all your own words, presented back to you in an arrangement that shows the utter absurdity of the position. Cling to it all day, but don't be so shocked when others refuse to bow to your church as if it were some authority.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Of course it does. Amil was something there was "no agreement upon," over 100 years later, in your own words. Therefore Jesus did not give the Apostles truth on this point. Either there is no truth on this point that can be known but your church simply made it up due to being uncomfortable admitting it simply doesn't know, or Jesus didn't deliver all truth to the Apostles as you interpret Scripture to say. It has to be one or the other, you can't have it both ways.

Checkmate.



I'm glad you have the sense to agree on these things, but it really has no bearing on our discussion here.



So you're content that amil is not truth, and your church just made it up. Ok.



Jesus teaching the Apostles an amil position would've been a mighty confounding factor to any chiliast. How you overlooked that I don't know, but perhaps you should consider things like that before you go labelling others superficial.

What you have to accept is that Jesus did not teach the Apostles amil, and by your own standards that excludes it from being "all truth." Why then your church teaches it I'll leave for you to decipher, but clearly it isn't related to the original church as you claim. These are all your own words, presented back to you in an arrangement that shows the utter absurdity of the position. Cling to it all day, but don't be so shocked when others refuse to bow to your church as if it were some authority.

Are you reading anything I say? I don't think so. Not working SC. You can try to spin the words of others all you like to make them say things they did not say, twisting and turning the facts to suit your fancy. But in the end, you are no closer to being right than when you first started.


I think it would help to learn how to play chess.