[As bare-bone basics:1 - Israel is not the CHURCH WHICH IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. 2 - THE CHURCH WHICH IS THE BODY OF CHRIST is not Israel.]

As bare-bone basics:

1 - Israel is not the CHURCH WHICH IS THE BODY OF CHRIST.

2 - THE CHURCH WHICH IS THE BODY OF CHRIST is not Israel.

I agree.

Did you read my post?

I never said either of those things and in fact oppose such doctrines.

Here's a little exercise to help you understand why distinctions must be made between various entities and dispensations:

One could ask many questions about the above portions of Scripture, but I'll only ask three:

1 - Has the above already happened and been fulfilled?  YES  or  NO

2 - If "NO" is the answer to question number one, will the above happen and be fulfilled?  YES  or  NO

3 - Which people does the above apply to, and which dispensation is being discussed?

Has God ever directly fulfilled his promises to Israel with them that did not believe? YES or NO

You must take into account the NT teaching regarding Israel, in order to understand that their current condition (i.e. some believing, most not) is nothing new to them. Otherwise you make the mistake that many were making at Jesus first advent. That is, that being "Israel in the flesh" is sufficient to be among Gods elect. It just isn't so, and never has been.

Amen! Thanks for the responses.

I had always searched for a New Testament reasoning regarding this issue, because so many theistic evolutionists and such would simply disregard most of the more direct references as being far too interpretive.

But this is rather hard for them to overcome. They may disagree, but there isn't really much of an alternative interpretation.

And I cannot take credit for the teaching, I found it taught by a teacher from the early 20th century, though I have never found that link again, and I cannot remember his name. It has always been a blessing and an assurance to me though.

Grace and peace

Hi Superfundy,

I tend to agree with you on the reasons for seeing a post-trib but also agree with Brother Tom that it is not a salvation issue and not worthy of being argued. What does it matter if the tribulation is pre, mid or post? What does matter is that we are ready for it when that time arrives. It is as Jesus tells us in Mat 24:42-51. He repeats this twice again in Mat 25:1-29, the importance is that we should be ready whenever that time is and until that time arrives we should be about our Father's work bringing as many to Him that we are able to in and through Him.

Well, the scriptures have been preserved for a reason.

Obviously, this is NOT an issue of salvation or even orthodoxy, but I think there are other legitimate reasons for addressing the reasonings behind the various views. There are good points in virtually every view that isn't cultic or just outragious.

For instance, I don't claim to know for a certainty that there will not be a pre-trib rapture. In fact, I cannot really even guarantee scripturally that we aren't IN the tribulation now (Has anyone read, "The False Prophet"?). But there was some reason for Jesus giving the signs he gave, and I believe it was that the elect would be ready when the time came. The question for me now, is have we seen some of those signs already, or are they all still (as I have always believed) yet future.

The fact is, no one really seems to have any reasoning that has the kind of scriptural certainty that I would really prefer. Then again, niether did most who knew the scriptures at Jesus first advent. They only THOUGHT they did, when in reality, they had completely missed it. I just would like to avoid being in that position, because Jesus seems to say that them that are NOT ready, are them that are decieved, and do not see the signs. Not just them that didn't pick the right doctrine but were saved anyway.

See my point?

But I don't disagree with you, and I certainly hate to see this issue divide believers.

But it often does. 

["Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day [the day of the Lord]]

Some who hold to the post-trib Rapture position say that there is not one verse of Scripture which explicitly affirms the Rapture of the Church before the tribulation.



But why need there be?

Because there are SO many that directly affirm a post trib rapture. If pre-trib were true, there would be as direct support for it as there is for the post trib view. But (sadly, I must confess) there is none.

Years ago we printed an article entitled First the Departure, in which we dealt at length with a passage of Scripture which does explicitly affirm that the Rapture will precede the tribulation. In this article we gave conclusive evidence that the words hee apostasia in II Thessalonians 2:3 should have been rendered "the departure" rather than "a falling away" and that the passage thus reads:

"Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day [the day of the Lord]1 shall not come except the departure come first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition."

Except for the fact that Jesus also taught about a falling away in the Olivette discourse, and he spoke of it as one of the signs preceding the AOD, which is also precisely what Paul does. Allowing scripture to interpret scripture, we really have no authority (scriptural or otherwise) to apply a positive meaning to a term that is used in a negative connotation in most all other uses of it.

We are quite taken aback to see how lightly some have disposed of the evidence we advanced for this rendering of II Thessalonians 2:3. We have given Scriptural proof after proof that the word apostasia does not mean departure from the truth, but simply departure, and that the original passage in question certainly does not use the words "a falling away" but rather "the departure".

It is always, in almost every usage of it, used in the context of a spiritual apostacy.

And I prefer to allow scripture to interpret scripture, instead of simply ignoring Jesus teaching regarding the last days, and (without any scriptural authority) claiming it to be "not for the church". It just doesn't wash.

To all this our post-tribulational brethren reply by simply stating authoritatively and dogmatically that the word apostasia means a departure from the truth.

I think that is a mischaracterization of the argument designed to make the post trib view seem cultic or unorthodox.

The fact is, he is referring to the same falling away that Jesus referred to in Matthew 24:10 - 13. Just as he is referring to the same gathering, and day of the Lord in verse 1, as Jesus referred to in Matthew 24:30 - 31, and the same AOD that Jesus referred to in Matthew 24:15. Ignoring the obvious relationship of Pauls words in 1st and 2nd Thess, to Jesus Olivette Doscourse, has always seemed to me to be a kind of "head in the sand" attitude.

And it is quite strange coming from those who are normally quite literal in all their other veiws of scripture.

Were I to insist that the term "raised" here....

Rom 9:17  For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

....has the same connotation as it does here.....

Rom 10:9  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

You would not doubt (and rightly so) object.

By the method you are using here to support your assertions, I could claim that the scriptures say virtually anything I want them to say. But the bible is a message system, and the only accurate interpretive authority that we can apply to it, is the scriptures themselves.

With so many scriptural evidences supporting Apostolic reference to the Olivette Discourse with regard to Eschatology, I personally do not see how any other view is justified, than that the rapture will be "after the tribulation".

[A Progressive Dispensational View]

Wasn't sure where to enter a discussion, so I guess I will begin one.

This is rather controversial, so I hope it is accepted in the spirit with which it is offered.

A Progressive Dispensational View
 
A few years ago I began to question the conclusions of Classical (Darby) Dispensationalism. I questioned why, if Israels "program" had been temporarily "suspended", did Paul (quoting Moses) say that gentile salvation was given to make unbelieving Israel jealous? Jealous of what?? Surely not the Church which, according to Darbyism, has no stake in anything promised to Israel.

Why, if the Church itself is never mentioned in any way in the Old Testament, do the Apostles refer to the Old Testament so many times in the New, and that in the context of the Church?

Why, if the New Covenant to Israel is not to be initiated until after the second coming of Christ, did Jesus, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews, all mention it in the context of the ministry of the Church?

Why does God apparently have multiple means of salvation, one for the unbelieving Jew, and one for the Church?

Why, if Jesus has broken down the middle wall of partition between us (Jews and Gentiles) are there yet divisions in the New Testament, two gospel messages, some books for the Jewish believers, and some for the Gentiles?

These are some of the basic questions which I sought to answer, and did. And then I found out that others had already blazed a trail ahead of me some years earlier, asking the same questions, and finding the exact same answers I did.

Firstly, I do not believe that Israel has been "cast aside" nor do I believe that the New Covenant offer to Israel has been withdrawn, as many classical dispensationalists and replacement theologians do. In fact, the New Covenant was established with a believing remnant of Israel (Luke 22:20), which at the first were called his disciples, were the subject of Jesus statement at Mat 23:34, and then at Acts 2 were called The ekklesia (The Church).

Paul agreed with this view according to Rom 11:1, 2, & 5. Certainly we cannot gleen from Pauls words in these verses that Israels program has been suspended (the parentheses), nor obviously, that Israel has been "replaced". Quite the contrary to both conclusions, there is only a partial blindness that has happened to Israel according to Rom 11:25, which indicates quite clearly that there is a "remnant" that is not blinded. As Paul puts it, they are the "remnant according to the the election of grace" (Rom 11:5). Not only this but the tense and context of that verse indicates that this "election of grace" was also true for each generations "remnant" throughout Israels entire history, and it is obviously still true today.

This tells us that salvation by grace through faith has always been Gods way, even prior to the cross, and the Old Testament saints were saved "retroactively" so to speak, for the remnant who died in faith (Heb 9:15). "That they should not be made perfect apart from us." (Heb 11:40). And so that "in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, even in Him (Eph 1:10).

This union of Old Testament and New Testament believers is spoken of in a past tense by Paul; "For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named." (Eph 3:14,15).

Therefore, the "all Israel" of Rom 11:26 = The "Remnant of Israel" in Rom 9:27.

Where is this remnant of Israel today (in this dispensation), if not in the Church?

The Olive tree parable confirms this conclusion. Those Israelis who do not accept their Messiah, are called "natural branches" that have been "broken off" from the "good tree". The fact that only some of the natural branches were broken off, means that a remnant are/were not. And it means that gentiles are grafted in among them (Israel)(Rom 11:17). This illustrates a continuity of the believing remnant of Israel both before and after Christ's death and resurrection.

All of this indicates that God is, and has always been, continually "progressively", fulfilling his covenants and promises with Israel, but only with the believing remnant. And it indicates too, that this is no change for Israel at all. Rather, this is just as it has always been for them throughout their history.

With which Paul also agreed again in Acts 26:6-7.

The only difference now is "the mystery"; that the Gentiles are co-heirs, and fellow citizens with the saints (Rom 8:17, Eph 2:19, Gal 3:26). They are the unnatural branches graft into the good tree. It is important that replacement theologians be made to understand that unnatural branches remain unnatural even (as believers) graft into the tree. And it is equally crucial that classical dispensationalists are made to understand that natural branches (as unbelievers) remain natural broken away from it, or re-graft (as believers) back into it.

These are crucial truths in my opinion.

I believe this solves the supposed OT-NT discontinuity problems which the classical (Darby/Dallas) dispensational doctrine was intially proposed to solve. Unfortunately, today the system has been run so far afoul of that purpose, it has lost it's effectiveness in that regard.

So.....now, (from this perspective), there is good reason for Israel to be jealous of gentile salvation, and no biblical logic to saying God is no longer dealing with Israel in this dispensation (Rom 10:19, Rom 11:11). After all, their return to the land shoould have laid that assertion to rest completely. Now there is nothing strange or controversial about Old Testament references applied to the Church in the New Testament (i.e. Acts 2:15-21, Acts 10:43, Acts 15:14-18, Rom. 1:1,2, Rom. 4:13-17,23,24, Rom. 9:32,33, Rom. 15:4,8-10, 2 Cor. 6:16-7:1). No more controversy about the New Covenant being applied to the Church (i.e. 1 Cor 11:25-26 & Heb 8:6-13). And most importantly, no more need to try and figure out why God seems to have multiple methods of salvation (grace through faith has always been Gods method for all of time), and no more reason to rebuild the wall of partition by cutting the New Testament up into ethnically assigned bits and pieces. (Thank you Lord!)

[Fill the waterpots with water]

Hello, this will be my first post here.

Today, many Christian leaders are influencing the laity to acknowledge the scientific consensus that the universe (and the earth) MUST be far older than what the bible quite plainly portrays it to be.

When we look at the scientific evidence, even we believers who object to these claims must admit, some of the arguments are quite convincing and difficult to overcome.

And of course, when we use our intellect and inquire regarding the motivations of science, we might find ourselves wondering, "Surely they can't have it THAT wrong!" And, "Surely God has not made the evidence point to great age, when it is really much younger?"

And yet believers are confronted with the plain and clear wording of scripture, that the earth was created in 6 days, that the genealogies cannot support millions of years, and that the flood was indeed a world wide deluge. The only way these conclusions cannot be reached when simply reading scripture, is to approach the text with some heavily biased preconceived notions about what we ought to find there.

Is there a way that the earth and the universe can look old, without it being a deception? Can God create by a miracle, and yet the results still conform to his natural laws?

I believe so.....

The first miracle of Christ has great symbolism with regard to the creation narrative (which you will immediately notice); i.e. 6 water pots representing 6 days of creation; Jesus is given credit for the creation throughout the new testament, and this is Jesus first recorded miracle.  And yet even beyond all that, there is a conclusion here which I believe to be symbolic of mans observations, and how they can be right about their conclusions, and at the same time, in error.

Joh 2:1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
Joh 2:2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
Joh 2:3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
Joh 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
Joh 2:5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
Joh 2:6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
Joh 2:7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
Joh 2:8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
Joh 2:9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
Joh 2:10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
Joh 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

Notice the reaction of the ruler of the feast. He made the conclusion that this wine was the best wine they had. That is, he assumed this wine was made from among the best grapes, harvested from the best vineyards, carefully prepared and well aged at the best winery. In other words, he made a perfectly understandable and natural conclusion, and one that any one of us would have made in his place. And had we asked for his analysis, I am sure he would have given a long list of necessary components and processes required in the making of such a "good wine".

Yet he was missing information. He did not know that every natural process necessary in making this good wine was violated. The grapes were not even grown, much less harvested. There was no threshing, and there was no aging process. There was no winery at all. In fact, there wasn’t even a fermentation process. Yet, to this man, this wine seemed to be the best wine, from the best grapes, harvested from the best vineyard and well aged, simply because he had no knowledge of the true source of the wine.

The servants who served the wine knew the truth because they were privy to information which the ruler of the feast did not have. But even had he been told the truth, he probably would never have believed it, and would have certainly insisted that he knew the process for making such wine, and their theory about the source of this wine had to be either error, or pure fantasy.

I believe this is the source of the great divide between science and the church today. I believe the truth about the entire issue of the creation narrative and the age of the earth is contained here, in this first miracle of Christ.

He has revealed the truth to his servants, the elect.  But he has allowed the "rulers" to simply make natural conclusions, based upon valid observations of the laws which God himself has put into place.

Are they wrong? No more so than the ruler of the feast was wrong about the process of wine making.

Is this a deception on God’s part?

No, it is actually a form of self deception on the part of men. Because God has given us the truth; and yet, just as the ruler of the feast would have balked at the idea of making wine from water, so the scientific community balks at an earth that is merely 6 – 10,000 years old.

Yet that is precisely what the bible teaches.

Pro 30:5  Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Pro 30:6  Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.