Dake Bible Discussion BoardDo these Greek words refer to the same event??

General Discussion Forum devoted to the study of God's Word in Honor of Finis J. Dake.
User avatar
luchnia
Little Children, Let No Man Deceive You: He that Doeth Righteousness is Righteous, Even as He is Righteous
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:01 am

Re: Do these Greek words refer to the same event??

Post by luchnia »

Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:21 pm
branham1965 wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 4:39 am
There are four Greek words that are used to refer to The Lord's return.

Parousia,Epihinea,Apokolupsis,and Basilea.Do they refer to the same event or different events???
If you just look up all the places where Parousia is used in the New Testament, I think you'll see that this word (and the others, if you likewise look them up) likely refer to the events spoken of in the context where they are used. They do not always refer to the Lord's return.

It depends upon the context.
:angel:


Word up!

User avatar
Spiritblade Disciple
Moderator
Posts: 5509
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:27 pm

Re: Rapture Timing Experts

Post by Spiritblade Disciple »

dolph wrote:
Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:05 am
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:23 pm
dolph wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 11:08 am
The recent surge of anti-pre-tribulation rapture "experts" mock the pre-tribbers
"Experts" are rare, especially when it comes to proving the Pre-Trib Rapture.

If you had to list three biblical passages that solidly supported the Pre-Trib Rapture, could you do it?

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 King James Version (KJV)
► Show Spoiler
1 Corinthians 15:51-54 King James Version (KJV)
► Show Spoiler
1Thessalonians 2:1-10 King James Version (KJV)
► Show Spoiler
Note: The frequent mistake made by those who are anti- pre-trib is using the Olivet Discourse scriptures spoken by Jesus for their arguments against the pre-tribbers. Jesus was the apostle of the circumcision and was talking to the Jews who knew nothing of the Church and going to Heaven. Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles and he was the one God chose to give the 18 or 19 mysteries of the Church. Paul never spoke of the tribulation, Jacob's trouble or Daniel's 70th Week. Paul was looking for the Blessed Hope, Jesus and the rapture of the Church. In discussing the rapture twice Paul tells the Church to "comfort one another with these words.The Jews on the other hand expected a "day of vengeance", Isa.61:2. Keep in mind that it was the Jews who killed all their prophets, crucified Christ, sacrificed their babies to Mollock and conspired to kill Paul, Acts 23:12-14.

EDIT:
I meant to include in the above that the Olivet Discourse is ONLY about Christ's SECOND COMING. As we see these signs, however, they do tell us that the rapture, that precedes the tribulation, must be close.
So, in essence, it really comes down to how dispensational a person is in interpreting the Bible. A person who isn't dispensational might have a hard time accepting these scriptures as supporting a Pre-Trib Rapture and so long as such a person doesn't distinguish between a message for the Jews and a message for the Gentiles, it would be much easier to view these scriptures as applying to the Post-Trib Rapture.

Of note is that none of the scriptures given actually say that the Rapture is Pre-Trib. Therefore, it must be inferred based upon other presuppositions (such as those you mention about Paul being the Apostle to the Gentiles).


Matthew 5:19-20 New King James Version
"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

User avatar
dolph
Go Forth, Preaching Every Where... And, the Lord Shall Work With You, Confirming His Word With Signs Following
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:14 pm

Re: Rapture Timing Experts

Post by dolph »

Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Tue Mar 31, 2020 7:35 pm
dolph wrote:
Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:05 am
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:23 pm
dolph wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 11:08 am
The recent surge of anti-pre-tribulation rapture "experts" mock the pre-tribbers
"Experts" are rare, especially when it comes to proving the Pre-Trib Rapture.

If you had to list three biblical passages that solidly supported the Pre-Trib Rapture, could you do it?

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 King James Version (KJV)
► Show Spoiler
1 Corinthians 15:51-54 King James Version (KJV)
► Show Spoiler
1Thessalonians 2:1-10 King James Version (KJV)
► Show Spoiler
Note: The frequent mistake made by those who are anti- pre-trib is using the Olivet Discourse scriptures spoken by Jesus for their arguments against the pre-tribbers. Jesus was the apostle of the circumcision and was talking to the Jews who knew nothing of the Church and going to Heaven. Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles and he was the one God chose to give the 18 or 19 mysteries of the Church. Paul never spoke of the tribulation, Jacob's trouble or Daniel's 70th Week. Paul was looking for the Blessed Hope, Jesus and the rapture of the Church. In discussing the rapture twice Paul tells the Church to "comfort one another with these words.The Jews on the other hand expected a "day of vengeance", Isa.61:2. Keep in mind that it was the Jews who killed all their prophets, crucified Christ, sacrificed their babies to Mollock and conspired to kill Paul, Acts 23:12-14.

EDIT:
I meant to include in the above that the Olivet Discourse is ONLY about Christ's SECOND COMING. As we see these signs, however, they do tell us that the rapture, that precedes the tribulation, must be close.
So, in essence, it really comes down to how dispensational a person is in interpreting the Bible. A person who isn't dispensational might have a hard time accepting these scriptures as supporting a Pre-Trib Rapture and so long as such a person doesn't distinguish between a message for the Jews and a message for the Gentiles, it would be much easier to view these scriptures as applying to the Post-Trib Rapture.

Of note is that none of the scriptures given actually say that the Rapture is Pre-Trib. Therefore, it must be inferred based upon other presuppositions (such as those you mention about Paul being the Apostle to the Gentiles).
I have made the assumption that all here were dispensational. I have never met an anti-dispensational person in 41 years. Are you of that persuasion Spiritblade? Didn't the New Covenant replace the Old Jewish covenant???



User avatar
Spiritblade Disciple
Moderator
Posts: 5509
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:27 pm

Re: Are You a Dispensationalist?

Post by Spiritblade Disciple »

► Show Spoiler



dolph wrote:
Tue Mar 31, 2020 8:18 pm
I have made the assumption that all here were dispensational. I have never met an anti-dispensational person in 41 years. Are you of that persuasion Spiritblade? Didn't the New Covenant replace the Old Jewish covenant???
I don't think the answer to the question is as simple as "Yes, I'm dispensational," or "No, I'm not dispensational," Dolph. I say that because I recognize that there are differing degrees of dispensationalism and different schools of thought within dispensationalism.

For instance, in my opinion, Bullinger's dispensationalism (with which I'm only barely familiar; not an expert) is more extreme than Dake's. And, the Ruckmanites have a different understanding of it, as well. Then there are the Mid-Acts Dispensationalists, who seem to think that if Paul didn't write it, it's not for us, today. And, even some of what Paul wrote (Hebrews) isn't written to Gentile believers, today. Thus, one's degree or understanding of dispensationalism can affect what one believes concerning most everything else about the Bible. In my experience, the more dispensational a person is, the more likely they are to believe in unconditional OSAS in this age, but they may (and often do) hold to the idea that salvation was or will be conditional in other ages.

To me, dispensationalism is more complex than just believing that the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant. Many non-dispensationalists believe that. For instance, most Catholic and mainline Protestant brands of Christianity are non-dispensational and yet believe that the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant. And, there are even some Baptists that do not hold to dispensationalism, but believe that the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant.

So, are there any scriptures that we can read without dispensational glasses that clearly teach the Pre-Trib Rapture?


Matthew 5:19-20 New King James Version
"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

User avatar
dolph
Go Forth, Preaching Every Where... And, the Lord Shall Work With You, Confirming His Word With Signs Following
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:14 pm

Re: Are You a Dispensationalist?

Post by dolph »

Very interesting comment, SB. I have listened to Les Feldick over the past ten years just to get some basic teaching in me, not that I agree with all he says. I would guess you could call him a Mid-Acts dispensationalist because he bases his teaching on "Paul's Gospel". But what about Jesus teaching you must be born again and the fact that Luke 16:16 says the Law ended at Jesus' baptism by John?? And weren't the O.T. Jews saved by faith in the coming redeemer, not by keeping the Law? On the other hand the Olivet Discourse has confused many young Bible prophesy student who believe these are pre-trib rapture verses. I've often thought there should be a section of scripture call The transition Time between the old and new testament. Your thoughts?



User avatar
branham1965
Little Children, Let No Man Deceive You: He that Doeth Righteousness is Righteous, Even as He is Righteous
Posts: 6519
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:18 am

Re: Are You a Dispensationalist?

Post by branham1965 »

NO i am not.



User avatar
Spiritblade Disciple
Moderator
Posts: 5509
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:27 pm

Re: Are You a Dispensationalist?

Post by Spiritblade Disciple »

dolph wrote:
Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:58 pm
Very interesting comment, SB. I have listened to Les Feldick over the past ten years just to get some basic teaching in me, not that I agree with all he says. I would guess you could call him a Mid-Acts dispensationalist because he bases his teaching on "Paul's Gospel". But what about Jesus teaching you must be born again and the fact that Luke 16:16 says the Law ended at Jesus' baptism by John?? And weren't the O.T. Jews saved by faith in the coming redeemer, not by keeping the Law? On the other hand the Olivet Discourse has confused many young Bible prophesy student who believe these are pre-trib rapture verses. I've often thought there should be a section of scripture call The transition Time between the old and new testament. Your thoughts?
I've seen very few of Les Feldick's programs. I liked what I saw, but I think you're right that he probably is or is close to being a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist. I'd have to hear a lot more from him to decide.

Something to remember about the Law. Keeping it never saved anyone. If keeping it could have saved anyone, salvation would've been by keeping the Law. I have trouble with the idea that salvation could be attained through meeting requirements in any dispensation, as the idea of attaining requirements sounds like works righteousness to me.

I think the O.T. Jews that were saved were saved by grace. Not faith alone. But, by grace through faith. Devils believe, but can the faith of a devil get a devil saved? No. Not without grace. The fact that Noah found grace is interesting as it implies that others didn't. Some even placing themselves so contrary to finding grace that they cannot find grace in their mortal lives, especially once God ratifies their choices. I think salvation has been by grace through faith in every age and will continue to be so in all future ages.

There's not much in the Olivet Discourse, if memory serves, that can be used to support a Pre-Trib Rapture. Post-Trib, absolutely. But, not Pre-Trib.

I was listening to a Ruckmanite preacher, last night, on YouTube, who was trying to explain why the Book of Hebrews isn't for the Church. Title caught my eye as it sounded like it applied to discussions, here. He said that the New Testament is laid out as you suggest. In his opinion, the Gospels aren't to us. They are historical. Acts isn't to us, as it is both historical and is a transitional book between the end of God's dealings with the Jews and the beginning of the Age of Grace. Then, we have the writings of Paul. He said, those are for us, except Hebrews. And, from Hebrews on is to the Jews, for after the Age of Grace. That leaves us with only a few epistles for us, if he is right. And, I'm not saying that he is. Right now, I'm only seeking to understand why he believes he is right.

Personally, I think much more of the Bible is for us than just the Epistles, even if it isn't all directly written to the Church in the Age of Grace.

That Ruckmanite that I mentioned had an interesting point about the New Covenant of Hebrews 8:8 isn't with the Church if the Church isn't Israel. Therefore, the Church isn't a partaker in that particular New Covenant. Which makes me wonder, what New Covenant is the Church part of?

So many questions... (Unless the Church is Israel...)


Matthew 5:19-20 New King James Version
"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

User avatar
Spiritblade Disciple
Moderator
Posts: 5509
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:27 pm

Re: Are You a Dispensationalist?

Post by Spiritblade Disciple »

branham1965 wrote:
Wed Apr 01, 2020 6:01 pm
NO i am not.
Why aren't you a dispensationalist?


Matthew 5:19-20 New King James Version
"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

User avatar
dolph
Go Forth, Preaching Every Where... And, the Lord Shall Work With You, Confirming His Word With Signs Following
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:14 pm

Re: Are You a Dispensationalist?

Post by dolph »

Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 9:59 pm
dolph wrote:
Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:58 pm
Very interesting comment, SB. I have listened to Les Feldick over the past ten years just to get some basic teaching in me, not that I agree with all he says. I would guess you could call him a Mid-Acts dispensationalist because he bases his teaching on "Paul's Gospel". But what about Jesus teaching you must be born again and the fact that Luke 16:16 says the Law ended at Jesus' baptism by John?? And weren't the O.T. Jews saved by faith in the coming redeemer, not by keeping the Law? On the other hand the Olivet Discourse has confused many young Bible prophesy student who believe these are pre-trib rapture verses. I've often thought there should be a section of scripture call The transition Time between the old and new testament. Your thoughts?
I've seen very few of Les Feldick's programs. I liked what I saw, but I think you're right that he probably is or is close to being a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist. I'd have to hear a lot more from him to decide.

Something to remember about the Law. Keeping it never saved anyone. If keeping it could have saved anyone, salvation would've been by keeping the Law. I have trouble with the idea that salvation could be attained through meeting requirements in any dispensation, as the idea of attaining requirements sounds like works righteousness to me.

I think the O.T. Jews that were saved were saved by grace. Not faith alone. But, by grace through faith. Devils believe, but can the faith of a devil get a devil saved? No. Not without grace. The fact that Noah found grace is interesting as it implies that others didn't. Some even placing themselves so contrary to finding grace that they cannot find grace in their mortal lives, especially once God ratifies their choices. I think salvation has been by grace through faith in every age and will continue to be so in all future ages.

There's not much in the Olivet Discourse, if memory serves, that can be used to support a Pre-Trib Rapture. Post-Trib, absolutely. But, not Pre-Trib.

I was listening to a Ruckmanite preacher, last night, on YouTube, who was trying to explain why the Book of Hebrews isn't for the Church. Title caught my eye as it sounded like it applied to discussions, here. He said that the New Testament is laid out as you suggest. In his opinion, the Gospels aren't to us. They are historical. Acts isn't to us, as it is both historical and is a transitional book between the end of God's dealings with the Jews and the beginning of the Age of Grace. Then, we have the writings of Paul. He said, those are for us, except Hebrews. And, from Hebrews on is to the Jews, for after the Age of Grace. That leaves us with only a few epistles for us, if he is right. And, I'm not saying that he is. Right now, I'm only seeking to understand why he believes he is right.

Personally, I think much more of the Bible is for us than just the Epistles, even if it isn't all directly written to the Church in the Age of Grace.

That Ruckmanite that I mentioned had an interesting point about the New Covenant of Hebrews 8:8 isn't with the Church if the Church isn't Israel. Therefore, the Church isn't a partaker in that particular New Covenant. Which makes me wonder, what New Covenant is the Church part of?

So many questions... (Unless the Church is Israel...)
I am totally against "replacement theology" but spiritually speaking we are spiritual Israel in that we were grafted in to the roots of the original olive tree of Romans C.11
By the way, if one adds up all the scripture condemning the Jews like Peter on the day of Pentecost or Paul in 1 Thes. 2:15,16, one can understand not only the antisemitism of the Catholic Church, Luther and Calvin (not to mention today's bankers, MSM and Hollywood) and that it is the Jews who are promised a "day of vengeance"(Isa.61:2), ie., the tribulation and hardly the Church who is saved and washed in Christ's Blood and who Christ exchanged His righteousness to for our unrighteousness. The timing of the Church's rapture should be a shut and closed case. (Not to mention it is Daniel's 70th Week and all 70 weeks were "determined for Jerusalem and God's people", Dan.9:24) But today's Church often equates us Christians with the Jews which is totally absurd, we are almost opposites. The trib is Jacob's Trouble. Your thoughts?



User avatar
luchnia
Little Children, Let No Man Deceive You: He that Doeth Righteousness is Righteous, Even as He is Righteous
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:01 am

Re: Are You a Dispensationalist?

Post by luchnia »

dolph wrote:
Thu Apr 02, 2020 11:39 pm

By the way, if one adds up all the scripture condemning the Jews like Peter on the day of Pentecost or Paul in 1 Thes. 2:15,16, one can understand not only the antisemitism of the Catholic Church, Luther and Calvin
Peter and Paul condemned the Jews? Really? Where do you get this stuff from? Sin condemned those Jews that would not repent, not Peter, nor Paul. Paul and Peter were sent to save men.


Word up!

Post Reply