***Marked safe from the rapture. nm
- Thread starter LOTRGOTDAWGFAN
- Start date
Or why Bigfoot is only ever filmed with a potato.
Freaked me out as a kid. They showed us some damn movie to horrify us.
I never cease to be amazed by the theological geniuses who have responded to the rather straightforward NONE SHALL KNOW THE DAY OR THE HOUR by saying "Well maybe not but I think can pin it down to these two days!"
Bring it.....I doubt anyone is going to change my mind on it but I'm interested to hear what you think.
And how many times is it mentioned that the “day of the Lord” will come like “a thief in the night.”
No one knows and anyone who tells you they know is speaking blasphemy.
Ok, I will bite. When it comes to the thousand years in Revelation 20, there are three main views. Premill (I won't spell it out), Amill, and postmill. Dispensationlism is premill, which considers the 1,000 years to come after the rapture. Amill views the 1,000 years as not literal, and postmill views a great Revival then Christ comes back. There is also historic premill which is not exactly like dispensationlism.
Where do I find myself? I would say a positive Amill. Postmill sounds really inviting and I like those guys as they are often the most evangelistic, but I don't see it exactly in Scripture the way they say it.
One of the things that attracts me to Amill is I often hear other viewpoints on everything, especially in Revelation and with a lot of assurance say this is what this means and this is what this means. They often have charts and seem so self assured, and yet, so many of their predictions have not come to be correct, not to mention that I often don't see what they see in the Scripture. An Amill on the other hand will often look at much of Revelation and will admit, "I'm not sure."
With that being said, I will be the first to say, I am not really sure. Maybe the other viewpoints are correct. It's not something that I really want to argue about. Discuss in good faith, sure, but I am not even 100 percent certain an Amill position is correct.
However, I would say that there are some very serious errors with SOME dispensationlists, NOT ALL.
1) Often dispensationlists are way too passionate about it. Of course, that can be the case with any theology, even good theology, but when it comes to Revelation, people are often obsessed about their viewpoint. One of the best sermons that people think that I preached was taking them through the book of Revelation, pointing out at every turn where Jesus is mentioned. My congregation is mostly older and thus, dispensationlists, but they loved the sermon. They had never seen Revelation like that before.
2) As one person said, dispensationlism makes the church into cowards as they fear the big bad anti-christ.
3) Some dispensationlists view Old Testament people as being saved by works instead of by faith alone. If that were the case, then you would have to throw out Romans 4 because Paul’s whole point is that even Abraham and David were saved by faith alone. In fact, all of Romans would have to be thrown out because Paul’s whole point in the beginning of Romans is that it is impossible to please God based on works for every human being.
4) Some dispensationlists will talk a lot about the temple being rebuilt and sacrifices made again. I'm sorry, but that is an affront to Christ. Those sacrifices where meant to point to Jesus. I don't see how this could be in God's redemptive plan to have people make sacrifices again.
5) Finally, I just don't see in Scripture where people get a second chance once something happens like the rapture. It seems really clear that people are appointed one time of judgement. At the very least, the Bible focuses in on judgement at the time of death, not a judgement where some are taken and some not.
Again, I will be the first to say I might be wrong, and I am not willing to argue about these things. Discuss, sure, but no arguments.
Where do I find myself? I would say a positive Amill. Postmill sounds really inviting and I like those guys as they are often the most evangelistic, but I don't see it exactly in Scripture the way they say it.
One of the things that attracts me to Amill is I often hear other viewpoints on everything, especially in Revelation and with a lot of assurance say this is what this means and this is what this means. They often have charts and seem so self assured, and yet, so many of their predictions have not come to be correct, not to mention that I often don't see what they see in the Scripture. An Amill on the other hand will often look at much of Revelation and will admit, "I'm not sure."
With that being said, I will be the first to say, I am not really sure. Maybe the other viewpoints are correct. It's not something that I really want to argue about. Discuss in good faith, sure, but I am not even 100 percent certain an Amill position is correct.
However, I would say that there are some very serious errors with SOME dispensationlists, NOT ALL.
1) Often dispensationlists are way too passionate about it. Of course, that can be the case with any theology, even good theology, but when it comes to Revelation, people are often obsessed about their viewpoint. One of the best sermons that people think that I preached was taking them through the book of Revelation, pointing out at every turn where Jesus is mentioned. My congregation is mostly older and thus, dispensationlists, but they loved the sermon. They had never seen Revelation like that before.
2) As one person said, dispensationlism makes the church into cowards as they fear the big bad anti-christ.
3) Some dispensationlists view Old Testament people as being saved by works instead of by faith alone. If that were the case, then you would have to throw out Romans 4 because Paul’s whole point is that even Abraham and David were saved by faith alone. In fact, all of Romans would have to be thrown out because Paul’s whole point in the beginning of Romans is that it is impossible to please God based on works for every human being.
4) Some dispensationlists will talk a lot about the temple being rebuilt and sacrifices made again. I'm sorry, but that is an affront to Christ. Those sacrifices where meant to point to Jesus. I don't see how this could be in God's redemptive plan to have people make sacrifices again.
5) Finally, I just don't see in Scripture where people get a second chance once something happens like the rapture. It seems really clear that people are appointed one time of judgement. At the very least, the Bible focuses in on judgement at the time of death, not a judgement where some are taken and some not.
Again, I will be the first to say I might be wrong, and I am not willing to argue about these things. Discuss, sure, but no arguments.
Last edited:
Who is going to be the 4th horseman since Ole passed? Probably Barry Windham, right?
I meant mainstream theology. I'm not really hung up on it and don't think it's worth it to argue. Forrest for the trees kinda thing. It was just weird for me to randomly stumble across something I was taught and believed to be the standard and find out that not to be the case.
Here’s my take. Most Jews didn’t recognize Jesus when he came the first time. Despite it being foretold in the scriptures. I’d bet most people trying to interpret Revelation have got a lot wrong too. But after the fact it will make sense.
Good stuff preacher name checks out. When I went down this rabbit hole a few days ago 3 verses easily spelled it out for me in my research : 1 thes 4:16, Matthew 24: 29-30, & revelation 7:14. To me the case is clear 1 event after suffering on earth.
As I said earlier it was just a wild thing to find out at 41 but I’m not hung up on it. I’m very much a “we need to stick together” thinker instead of finding every theological point to disagree on and decide this denomination over the other. I think you can be a good standung Christian going to a Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian church in the same way you can be a scum bag that goes to any of those.
if the premillenialists are right, the others will know it, if the amillenialists are right, no one will know it, and the postmillenialists apparently haven't gathered in the past 2000 years that things haven't really been leaning their direction, particularly in the past century.
HOWEVER, I just learned of double post-tribulational pre-amillenialism, and I think I'm going to sign up with that one if only because they didn't think up a better name, assuming I can ever actually learn it.
I am one, and I'm a fairly basic one, but good heavens I've seen the ones that take it waaaay too seriously, and they need some help. My pastor I grew up with is so all-Paul all-the-time that he comes across like the other 53 books are only there as reference material. It's all Paul's gospel vs. Peter's gospel and "for us but not TO us" and I'm sitting here thinking that by even the most conservative definition of the Church Age, every single word of the New Testament was written DURING the Church Age TO Church Age believers. He'll post an article about something that sounds interesting and then bury the lede under three pages of Paul being THE apostle to the Gentiles.
I'm admittedly not super read-in on covenant theology but any time I read it I just think....this is all the same, it's just a difference in terminology ultimately. In the end, at all times believers have ultimately been saved by the work of Jesus on the cross and His resurrection, whether in faith of it after the fact or in trust of its eventual occurrence before the case.
God darnit, preacher dawg, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar *****. No offense.
I'm just posting this so I can remember to revisit this thread in the morning.
Where is @Predestined ?
Where is @Predestined ?
When Jesus does come back there is a good chance it will be during the Feast of Trumpets (Rash Hashana). When Jesus was asked about His return, He said, “Of that day and hour no man knows.” This is an idiom that refers to Rosh Hashanah and the unique way this feast began. No man knew the day and hour when the Sanhedrin would confirm the report of the two witnesses and sanctify the celebration of the feast. Jesus also said we will know the season and his return will not be a surprise (his return at the end that is). Those that believe in the Rapture say that it is a mystery. I used to not believe in the rapture at all. Now I think it is possible, but not yet. Eschatology is very interesting.
If God won't tell His Son what day it is, we ain't gonna figure it out.
And if by some chance we do, I suspect God will just move the date
I think there's some compelling arguments around Rosh Hashanah given the shadow Christology built around the Hebrew feast calendar, but also trying to say when it's gonna be is a great way to be made to look like an idiot for all posterity. While eschatology is interesting, it shouldn't be all-encompassing.
You don't want to be this guy (I had a copy of this book):
Both the scrolls of Skelos and the Necronomicon Ex-Mortis indicate that the christian heaven was not locked into earth's orbit and was left hurtling near the Centaurus Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy. And based on Stargate rules, jeebus can't access the special mineral on Abydos to recreate the stargate (kurt russell version) therefore a "return" is still unlikely unless modern christians just make something up the same way they did 2000 years ago.
Wait. Isn't his son God also? Isn't God omniscient and omnipotent? So one person of the Trinity can have knowledge that another person of the Trinity has no access to? Is that omniscient?If God won't tell His Son what day it is, we ain't gonna figure it out.
And if by some chance we do, I suspect God will just move the date
I would say that concerning Revelation, it's already after the fact. Waaay after. Like 2000 years. It isn't about you, or me, or us, or our future or a warning to Randy in 2025 Tuscaloosa or Brother John at Bethesda Baptist in Orlando.
I see the writings of the early New Testemant books as the authors being convinced that all of this was going to occur in their lifetime.
They had a multitude of reasons to think that, too
Upon further research I think a guy came up with it as half-parody and named it thusly.
Frodo, Aragorn, and Gandalf all represented Christ-like features in their own ways, as described by professed Christian JRR Tolkien in the Lord of the Rings. Please discuss, LOTR-FAN.
Nice guess, but you don't know either. Like Patdog said, you'll find out like the rest of us - after the fact, when it's too late to do anything about it.
Like Jesus saying "THIS generation shall not pass away until all these things are fulfiled"? I have seen and heard it taught plenty of times that he was referring to a future generation when all of those signs would be happening and that the end would come soon after that. That certainly could be, but that just does fit with how it appears to be written. He was talking directly to people in the present and the people writing about it in the Gospels were writing directly to people in the present.... "YOU will hear of wars and rumors of wars"...
that's simple-minded analysis. even the jesus character in the bible represented deity-like features already seen in human history: Dionysus, Osiris, Mithras, Horus...to name a few. 'professed' christian? you mean he was catholic?
Reply
1: I don't see how being a dispensationalist is at odds with the mention of Christ in Revelation. After all the word "apocalypse" in the ancient Greek means "something made obvious" or "something completely revealed". Therefore "The Revelation of Jesus Christ"
2) The Church is mentioned repeatedly in the scriptures as "the bride of Christ" and the "royal family". Why would Christ not save the church from as much suffering as possible. Christ himself described much of eschatology with symbolism obtained from a Galilean wedding
3) My Pastor is as dispensationalist as they come, and he certainly does not teach this. The Jews of the Old Testament looked forward to tyhe Cross, and the Church looks backward. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was Christ, before the hypostatic union of God and man in one person, Jesus Christ.
4) Of coarse it's an affront. It's being done by unbelieving Jews of the tribulation, not by the Christians.
5) Grace before judgement. The disasters of the Tribulation are basically a wake up call.
I have no clue what you mean by "judgement at the time of death". Christ paid the penalty of sin and was judged for those sins FOR THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE. There is no second judgement for the Believer except to decide what rewards are given, if any. Unbelievers will be judged at The Great White Throne judgement, not when they die.
Matthew 24:36
Jesus certainly didn't know in his humanity. As for afterwards, perhaps he did. Doesn't change anything, If God didn't share the knowledge with the one man who never sinned, I doubt any of us clowns are gonna be in on the secret
I think the point is moot. If you have decided something is supernatural, by definition, anything is possible.
Not really a guess. I already know about when it was written, and what, therefore, it cannot be about. As I think we are saying here, none of us know the future including the author.