#2 THE RAPTURE

I showed earlier where both Thomas Ice and Samuel Tregellis attribute the secret rapture taking root in the church to J. N. Darby.</font>[/QUOTE]Notice how you did not respond that what I actually said. I said "dispensationalism in no form." You said "secret rapture." You see, you are having a conversation I am not. No one disputes that dispensationalism was systematized in the 1800s, and continues to this day. No one disputes that certain things in dispensationalism were "new" in teh 19th century. The pre trib rapture may be one of those, but some recent study has cast doubt on that conclusion, and what will you do if it is ever proven that a pretrib rapture teaching did exist earlier????

But to the main point, you and others have asserted that dispensationalism was completely new in the 1800s, never before seen in church history. That is simply false. Many of hte teachings of dispensationalism were known.

Thomas Ice on the History of Dispensationalism and Pretribulationalism disagrees with you about that claim Larry.</font>[/QUOTE]Showers in There Really is a Difference supports it. I have not read Ice so I am not sure what he says about it. Your comments here seem to address pretribulationism.

Anything conclusion about what? A pretrib rapture?

Yes, because of political concerns (cf. Showers). But my point was that amill did not even show up until almost 200 and was rejected by most for a long period of time after that. Amill, at one time, was "new" to church teaching, departing from everything that had been taught before that. By your standard, it seems you should reject it.

The first is absolutely not true. In a post of min on March 17, on the Laws of Interpretation thread, TEN scripture verses were used (and without personal views presented – just scripture) in support of the New Covenant being instituted at the Cross as a fulfillment of Jeremiah 31 – but the scripture was “unacceptable”. Then, Strong’s dictionary was used to define the word “nation” as meaning “the Gentile” world, but this was discarded as being irrelevant. After this, FOUR pre-Darby scholars were used for Commentary support so that it would not be just my interpretation alone of the text – but this too was phoo-phooed as being irrelevant. Thayer’s Lexicon was also used but blown off also.</font>[/QUOTE]You didn't quite get it right here. You used ten verses and the point you tried to make was shown not to be the necessary point of the verse. I presented a case that you used them wrongly. You cited commentators and lexicons, and I addressed both with commentators and lexicons. In other words, I used all of your standards of evidence to show your wrong.

Secondly, if you think I dispute that the NC was ratified or inaugurated at the cross, you need to go back and read. I said something very different than that, and that is what you won't address. I tried to take you to Jer 31 to get you to see who the NC was actually made with, and I showed irrefutable evidence that the NC is made only with the nation of Israel. It cannot be made with teh church unless Jer 31 means nothing at all. Just for brief review, the evidence was 1) the name house of Israel/Judah applies only to Israel as a nation, never to anyone else; 2) the covenant is made with those whose fathers were under the Mosaic covenant, something untrue of the church; 3) the covenant is made with those whose fathers came out of Egypt, something untrue of the church, 4) the covenant is made with those whose fathers broke the Mosaic covenant, something untrue of the church. And I could go on, but those were the basics.

So in reality, you provided no necessary conclusion for your position. Your verses supported your position only if you started with your position. If you started with another position, or with no position, your verses would not lead to your conclusion.

I used your own standards of evidence to refute you. You just didn't like the position, so you rejected evidence provided by the same standard you wanted me to use to accept your position.

So, as far as the second comment goes, it was grossly distorted to imply that I didn’t have an answer or couldn’t answer concerning the remainder of Jeremiah 31. However, as I indicated to him previously, I chose not to continue on with the discussion as it was merely proving to be falling on deaf ears and since there obviously seemed to be no genuine desire to take whatever I presented seriously. Because of that, and not because there were not answers, I decided not to waste my valuable time on a hardened heart.</font>[/QUOTE]First, my heart is not hardened. I reject that as a personal attack with absolutely no merit. But I have to wonder how you come to that conclusion. The fact that I reject your sources in favor of other sources that I believe deal better with teh text does not make my heart hardened. I could make the same charge of a hardened heart about you. How would you like that? You see, you are treating my interpretations like you accuse me of treating yours. The difference is that I have interacted with your interpretations; you have not with mine.

I make my life out of studying the Bible. I took your evidence seriously, until it could no longer be sustained scripturally. Second, I doubt that you have a good explanation of Jer 31:38-40 and I have to doubt that because you won't present it. Why not discuss theology in a theology forum? If you have a good explanation, it will be the first of your position that I have seen.

I wish you would discuss it. I can tell you up front that your method of argumentation (using only certain sources and ruling out others, as well as failing to deal with the text itself) is not acceptable. The text is the ultimate determiner of truth, not Thayer, Gill, Clarke, or anyone else. So why not get to the text?

 

ACTUALLY, I THOUGHT THIS WAS A HILARIOUS FAUX PAUX!!! </font>[/QUOTE]When you write enough and write fast, it is pretty easy to make mistakes. But when you write as much as I have, it is pretty easy to know what I meant.

 

Larry,

But my point was that amill did not even show up until almost 200 and was rejected by most for a long period of time after that. Amill, at one time, was "new" to church teaching, departing from everything that had been taught before that.

That's not exactly true. Many of the earliest church fathers (although admittedly not Papias or Irenaeus) could be seen as amill. Polycarp was certainly no premillenialist. The amill stance was not clearly delineated until Origen - but that may be somewhat because it was just a given!

My main complaint with dispensationalism is that it seems to have been specifically systematized at accomodate a literalist hermeneutic. I personally think that when viewed against the appropriate second temple Jewish background that the "prophecies" in the Bible do NOT need a literal futurist fulfillment.

 

The amill position was not clear in those times though Charles, if it even existed. Many of their words could be interpreted either way. Given the preponderance of premillennialism, it is reasonable to give that hte benefit of the doubt. In any case, amilliennialism was a very minor view until the time of Origen. I don't think there is much evidence to say that it was "a given."

Which leads to two points:
1) Amillennialism suffers from its complaint against dispenstionalism: late development (because "late" is a relative term).
2) The church fathers cannot be held as the ultimate authority on Scripture. Many of them held to infant baptism, something that we have soundly rejected (and rightly so). And we have not rejected it because Scripture says "Don't do it." We reject it because when we understand the total teaching of the Scriptures on baptism, there is no room left for it. Similarly, we should reject amillennialism and accept dispensationalism not because there is an explicit statement, but because when we understand the Scriptures in their totality, there is room only for dispensationalism.

As for your main complaint, dispensationalism is the result of the literalist hermeneutic. So, in a sense, it was developed in response to that. But that, as well, leads to two points:
1) That is the way we universally treat language. The hermeneutic used by amill and post mill is not used by anyone in communication.
2) We see the example of the apostolic writings where Scripture is treated in the manner in which we dispensationalists treat it. The first century disciples fully expected and earthly kingdom. Where did they get that idea? From the plain reading of the OT. And why should we look for something else? To accomodate a position taht developed out of political concerns (some would argue)? I don't think so. I see no reason to leave the plain meaning of Scripture.

I can't understand how you can say that the prophecies do not need a literal futurist fulfillment. Does that not call into question the truthfulness of God? If God said "X will happen," isn't the God for whom it is impossible to lie bound to make that happen? Can he really come back and say "I was just kidding"? I can't see that (and I don't think you mean to say that so don't misunderstand me). I think your side has overlooked the issues concerning the truthfulness of God and his communication (not intending to ... I simply find your explanations inadequate to deal with what seems to be God's intent).

 

Larry,

I think you're right that it is not clear exactly where the earliest fathers stood on millenialism. They did make comments that seem to hint at both. But then you say that premillenialism gets a nod. Remember that the millenialism of the first century was neither dispensational nor rapturist.

Regarding amillenialism not having precedent - well neither does dispensationalism! But I'll consent that it could go both ways with millenialism vs amillenialism in terms of precedent. It isn't clear.

Regarding prophecy - I don't think God was kidding! But I think dispensationlism way overliteralizes it. What does Revelation say to us in terms of prophecy? It says that we will be vindicated in the end - God will win and thus we should persevere. To see it as a literal timeline of future events is to misinterpret it.
As far as the literal hermeneutic being consistent with apostolic interpretation I would disagree. Paul should be interpreted against a backdrop of second temple Jewish writings and mindset, not against the 20th century literalist western mindset!

 

Pastor Larry

Hi Larry!

Let’s start with this sentence,

Who do you suppose is the author of my posts? And who do you suppose gets to decide what I meant when I highlighted your incorrectly composed sentence that grammatically said,

“You know [dispensationalism] is false if you have studied much.”

and replied with the word, “Amen.” I was not misconstruing what you wrote, but merely poking fun at it. I do not poke fun at the word of God, however, and I do not “violate authorial intent to drum up support for [my] own position.” (And here is another of your personal attacks!) The fact is that we have in the Bible the written word—we do NOT have the author’s intent. Sound biblical hermeneutics does NOT ask, “What did the author intend to write?” Sound biblical hermeneutics asks, “What do the written words say?” Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, and Charles Taze Russell all had their own private notions of what the biblical writers intended to express by their words, but these notions are irrelevant and I pay no attention to them. Instead, I pay attention to the words themselves and the peoples to whom they were addressed.

Therefore, if I debate the scriptures with someone who argues from their personal notion of the intent on the author and I argue from the Holy Scriptures, we end up with a mixture of the chaff and the wheat. They can keep their chaff, and I will stick to the wheat.

 

Ed,

Where's your faith?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Larry;

It's not spelled "h-e-r-e-m-e-n-e-t-i-c-s"

It is spelled "h-e-r-m-e-n-e-u-t-i-c-s" = hermeneutics

 

Oh Gee, DeafPostTrib!!!! Did you have to wake up Ed???

I was hoping he was serious!!!!

 

From Charles ...

Which is exactly my point. Some reject dispensationalism because it has not historic precedent, but fail to realize that their own view of amillennialism or post millennialism dies under the same criteria. It shows inconsistency in thought.

Obviously I disagree. I think to say that the message of Revelation is that God will win and we will be vindicated is way over simplified. You can communicate that in ... well ... eight words. Revelation takes 22 chapters and says a lot more. Why did he say that? To paint artistic pictures? Or to tell us certain things. Obviously, most dispensationalists agree that some of Revelation is figurative. But that is usually limited to the obvious figures, rather than saying it is all figurative, or mostly.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Who do you suppose is the author of my posts? And who do you suppose gets to decide what I meant when I highlighted your incorrectly composed sentence that grammatically said,

“You know [dispensationalism] is false if you have studied much.”

and replied with the word, “Amen.” I was not misconstruing what you wrote, but merely poking fun at it.</font>[/QUOTE]When you changed "it" to "dispensationalism" you misconstrued what I wrote, (unless you have a different meaning of "misconstrue." You know very well that I was referring to the charges, and not to dispensationalism. And when you said "Amen" to my authorial intent, you were "amen-ing" the fact that your charges were false. But in your authorial intent, that is not what you were intending. So yes, you violated the first rule of hermeneutics with your response to my post.

I didn't say you did, and I don't think you do. I think you handle it inappropriately but that's another issue.

Yes, you do, and no, that is not a personal attack. It was not about your personally at all. It was about the method with which you handle Scripture. I believe it is extremely inappropriate and inadequate, and it is not isolated to eschatology. It seems all too common.

Why do you think the author used the words that he did? The reason is clear: Because they communicated what he intended. To say that we don't have the author's intent is to completely miss the basics of communication. In my words, you have my intent. I choose words that I think will communicate what I intend to. If I thought they would communicate something I didn't intend, I would choose other words so as not to be misunderstood.

You have just asked the same question twice in different words. IN asking "What do the words say?" you are asking "What did he intend to communicate?" Have you actually given this any thought? Your position is fairly well outside the mainstream of evangelical hermeneutics, and with good reason ... It makes little sense in a philosophy of communication.

And when you do so rightly, paying attention to communicative theory, to the historical grammatical exegesis, you will have his intent. It works just like we communicate today.

AGain, simply inadequate to deal with teh reality. The "personal notion of the intent of the author" must be derived from "Holy Scriptures." If a person does not use hte words, historical context, and grammatical context to understand authorial intent, then they didn't get it. Your dichotomy is false.

You apparently are following the arguments of men like Philip Payne who argue against authorial intent. Essentially you are approaching a deconstructive view of the text, or a reader response, which is limited to how you in your 21st century context understand the words. That is illegitimate. Any proper understanding fo the words must deal with the historical grammatical context, and ask the question "How did the author use these words when he wrote them?" Many modern examples abound. For instance, the KJV translation of 1 Thess 4:15 by "text only" method, yields false doctrine. Only when you understand what the author (in this case translator) meant by "prevent" can you arrive a a proper understanding. When you use a "words only" approach, without the historical context, you miss the point. The same is true in more sophisticated examples where words have not changed meaning. A good place to start is Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth. It is a simple, entry level book, but will give a good foundation. Grant Osborne's The Hermeneutical Spiral is more complex but he too addresses these issues. But in any case, authorial intent is a key to understanding any text.

An author uses words that he believe will communicate his intention. If he thinks he will be misunderstood, he will use other words, because his intent is to communicate an idea. Thus, the words on teh page are key in the indication of his intent, and when coupled with the historical context leads to the author's intention.

Or to put it simply, "words only" can't work in any meaningful sense.

But that discussion is probably beyond the scope of this forum.

 

Ya' think????? YOu ever make any errors in typing fast?

This has unfortunately become all too typical of your contributions to this discussion: No substance; just attack the person. Why not discuss Scripture? Is the best you can do point out a typing error? Is that really all you have to bring to this table?

 

Larry,

Which is exactly my point. Some reject dispensationalism because it has not historic precedent, but fail to realize that their own view of amillennialism or post millennialism dies under the same criteria. It shows inconsistency in thought.

The truth of it is, as I said, we do not know for sure. You claim that while dispensationalism was systematized several hundred years ago it has been in existence since apostolic times. I think this is pretty unlikely but it is not provable. Likewise I think most early churchers were probably amill, with the doctrine systematized by Origen. Obviously I cannot prove this either.

Regarding the Revelation example of prophecy - I think that dispensationalism sees everything in a 20th century American context. I contend that the average Jew in the 1st century would NOT have seen things this way. I contend this after years of study of second temple Jewish writings including the Targums, DSS, apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. This is still my opinion - but I think that most scholars who have not decided, a priori, on a literalist hermeneutic agree with my position.

 

What you intended to say and what you wrote are two very different things, indeed, they are exact opposites. I did not say “Amen” to what you intended to say, but to what you wrote. And you have confused what I intended to say with what I wrote, with the consequence that you are saying that I wrote something entirely different from what I actually wrote. Had you taken my word “Amen” at face value, you would not have gotten so badly confused. But when you insisted upon reading what you imagined that I intended to say rather than what I wrote, you came to a radically wrong interpretation of what I wrote, just like dispensationalists have come to a radically wrong interpretation of what the Biblical writers wrote, basing their interpretation upon what they foolishly imagined the New Testament writers to intend to say.

Absolute nonsense! And that this is absolute nonsense you yourself have incontrovertibly proven to be so. In your words you wrote,

In these words we do NOT have your intent, we have instead the exact opposite of your intent. And in very many cases, the intent that you imagine to find in the Biblical writers is the precise opposite of what they actually did write.

Hogwash! "Authorial intent" is the subjective basis upon which the dynamic equivalence method of Biblical “translation” is based, giving us what are in reality very brief, highly subjective commentaries on the text rather than translations of the text. And through this highly subjective and grossly inaccurate method of hermeneutics the whole scheme of dispensationalism came to be, and its cost to Biblical understanding has been horrifically high. And no, I am NOT confusing here subjective translation with subjective interpretation—subjective translation is an expression subjective interpretation.

 

Pastor Larry wrote,

You are confusing how the author “used” the words with how the author “intended to uses” the words. Those who claim that the Biblical authors intended to say something very different from what they wrote are. . . (I can not think of a polite word for it).

What could possibly be more ridiculous! The translators of the KJV used a word that does not accurately express in English the meaning of the Greek word φθασωμεν. We are not to try to imagine what the Biblical writers intended to say—we are to believe what they did write and translate correctly into English the words in the Greek text.

 

Hey Larry! Larry! Larry!;

You know I just cracked up when I read this. I laughed so hard my own dog growled at me.

Very typical to accuse of what you are most guilty of.
May Christ Shine His Light On us all;
Mike

 

Even I will concede that Larry knows how to spell big words; his biggest problem is correctly spelling "the."

 

</font>[/QUOTE]This is plainly false. That is not what I wrote. That is what you changed what I wrote to say. And therein lies one of your problems. You decided what you think I should say, and the fact that I, in haste, messed up a subject verb agreement is not grounds for you to change my words to mean something else. Do you not understand that is dishonest?

This shows exactly my point. You knew what I meant, in spite of my error. Why? Because of context. If you would use context to interpret Scripture, you would be a dispensationalism. You were forced to misconstrue the intent of my words in order to add your "Amen."

Wrong discussion and wrong conclusion. Authorial intent is the only legitimate hermeneutic.

After mocking my typographical error, you say something that makes no sense at all. Funny how that works ...