Will the Rapture Happen Tomorrow?

[Ransom]

Jesus told them if they will receive it, John would have been the fulfillment of the Elijah prophecy. That did not happen therefore, he was not the fulfillment of that prophecy.

That's just a fancy way of saying the prophecy failed because some Jews foiled it.

Elijah will still come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord which of course is yet future.

Since it failed the first time, how (in your hermeneutic) can you know it will certainly come to pass the second time around?

 

[biscuit1953]

That's just a fancy way of saying the prophecy failed because some Jews foiled it.



Since it failed the first time, how (in your hermeneutic) can you know it will certainly come to pass the second time around?

Nothing failed. The Jews did not accept the truth so John did not fulfill the prophecy exactly as Jesus said.

 

[Ransom]

Nothing failed. The Jews did not accept the truth so John did not fulfill the prophecy exactly as Jesus said.

So John was never supposed to be the fulfillment of prophecy?

I stand by what I said before. To say "John would have been the fulfillment of the Elijah prophecy," as you did, is to say that prevailing circumstances caused the prophecy to be fulfilled (or not to be) in a way not originally foreseen or intended by its author.

In other words, it was wrong because, whatever other details it got correct, it missed the timing.

Put yet another way, saying a prophecy could be postponed or deferred is nonsense. It makes prophecy unreliable, the prophet false, and God incapable of keeping his promises--after all, if circumstances could postpone the fulfillment of prophecy once, there's no guarantee it won't happen again and again.

 

[biscuit1953]

So John was never supposed to be the fulfillment of prophecy?

According to scripture he could have been but everything worked out according to the sovereign will of God. The age old question concerning the sovereignty of God and man's responsibility. If the Jews would have accepted the truth the scriptures would have been written differently.

 

[Ransom]

Of course, you're flat-out wrong anyway, because Matt. 17 says nothing about John "could have been." Jesus says he was:

And the disciples asked him, "Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?" He answered, "Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands." Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist. (Matt. 17:10-13)​

Jesus is not saying John could have been the fulfillment of Malachi 4:5. He says John was the fulfillment of Malachi 4:5. If an inspired author--let alone Christ himself--declares a prophecy fulfilled in a certain way, there is no reason to seek another way in which it is to be fulfilled.

 

[illinoisguy]

The same spirit that led to John’s execution would also put Christ on the cross. Because of that the earthly kingdom has been delayed for over 2,000 years now but it will come.

What earthly kingdom? Jesus did not come to establish an earthly kingdom. "When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone." - John 6:15. "My kingdom is not of this world." - John 18:36

In John 17:4 Jesus said, "I have glorified thee on earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do." How could Christ say that, if He was sent by God the Father to establish an earthly kingdom, and not only did He not finish that work, but He never even started it?

Assuming for the sake of argument that Christ, contrary to all scriptural evidence, came to establish an earthly kingdom, but was unable to do so due to human opposition, thus resulting in a 2000-year "parenthesis" in God's plan, then what assurance do we have that He will be able to establish that earthly kingdom the second time around?

After all, if circumstances could postpone the fulfillment of prophecy once, there's no guarantee it won't happen again and again.

This is a valid and compelling objection to the whole preposterous dispensationalist notion of the "deferred kingdom" and the "parenthesis" in God's plan. If Christ couldn't pull it off the first time, what guarantee do we have that He will succeed the second time around?

 

[biscuit1953]

That's just a fancy way of saying the prophecy failed because some Jews foiled it.

Since it failed the first time, how (in your hermeneutic) can you know it will certainly come to pass the second time around?

John MacArthur is was a hardcore, dyed-in-the-wool, uncompromising, five-point-Calvinist just like you are but didn’t wring his hands about God failing, but maybe it will come to pass the second time around. He actually held to the same understanding I explained in his Study Bible and saw no conflict with the sovereignty of God on this subject. This short video explains his view as well as the understanding of countless other Christians.

 

[ALAYMAN]

That's not how you spell "monomania."

Thanks for the laugh, and, teaching me a new useful word, lol.

 

[ALAYMAN]

This is a valid and compelling objection to the whole preposterous dispensationalist notion of the "deferred kingdom" and the "parenthesis" in God's plan. If Christ couldn't pull it off the first time, what guarantee do we have that He will succeed the second time around?

God gave Hezekiah another opportunity. Was God too weak that he relented to Hezekiah's prayer? Maybe it's possible that in God's sovereignty, His intention all along was for a pause to give God's chosen people a second chance.

 

[illinoisguy]

There is a significant difference in Bible interpretation, between (1) those who hold that Christ came to establish a spiritual kingdom and that He succeeded, and (2) those who believe that Christ came to establish an earthly kingdom and He failed. I hold to the first position, while some dispensationalists hold to the second position, which inevitably leads to the conclusion that Christ was a loser who failed in His mission during His first advent.

Here is a representative statement from someone who held to the second position, Pastor Jack Schaap of First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana: "When Jesus went back to Heaven, the Father said, ‘Well? What happened? Did they accept your proposal?' Jesus replied, ‘It didn't go very well, Father.' The Father asked, ‘But were You able to negotiate a "contract?" Is there reconciliation?' ‘Well, it's like this,' Jesus ventured. ‘I went to the most promising people . . . They made fun of You. They put me on a Cross! They stripped me naked. They blasphemed Your holy name!'"

S.D. Gordon, in "Quiet Talks About Jesus," said, "Everything must be done through man's consent. . . . God proposes, man disposes. God proposed a king, and a worldwide kingdom with great prosperity and peace. Man disposed of that plan, for the bit of time and space controlled by his will."

W.E. Blackstone, in "Jesus Is Coming" - [Christ] "would have set up the kingdom, but they rejected and crucified Him."

Charles Stevens, in a book entitled "Prophecy and the Seventies" published in 1971 by Moody Press, said, "Christ's kingdom is presently in abeyance. The promised king came to His own and was rejected. David's throne is vacant. The king is ‘exiled' in heaven."

I cannot accept such teaching, that Christ's mission was to set up an earthly kingdom and He failed, that the mission "didn't go very well," that Christ is "exiled" from earth and His kingdom is "in abeyance" due to human resistance to God's program.

Let's dis-cuss!

 

[ALAYMAN]

....I cannot accept such teaching, that Christ's mission was to set up an earthly kingdom and He failed, that the mission "didn't go very well," that Christ is "exiled" from earth and His kingdom is "in abeyance" due to human resistance to God's program.

Let's dis-cuss!

Matt 13:54And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? 57And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. 58And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Was Jesus unable to do things that He wanted to do among His people? Or rather did He know they would reject His offer to heal them and choose to use their unbelief as opportunity and reason to do something elsewhere?

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Did God plan Jesus' crucifixion, or did evil Jews put Him on the cross. The premise for the question is faulty, just as yours is.

 

[Ekklesian]

but didn’t wring his hands about God failing

Amazing you can say something like that without blinking.

 

[Ransom]

John MacArthur

Irrelevant.

didn’t wring his hands about God failing

I don't wring my hands about God failing either. Because God hasn't failed. To say that God fails is to say there's a power in the universe capable of defeating him. That is heretical.

We've been through this before, however. I've quoted Scripture saying that not one of God's promises to Israel has failed (e.g.Josh 23:14), and you retort that some of them have. The failure of God would seem to be a Dispensationalist doctrine of some importance.

 

[JesusFan]

Dis-cuss!

We cannot know when will happen, just that we need to be ready and prepared if it does happen

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Since Israel is not the church, in order for God's redemptive program for the Jews to resume, the church age must first end fand the church taken out of the world. Hence the Rapture.

I am guessing this is not your position but your explanation as to why the rapture must take place in accordance with classic dispensationalists?

I find myself leaning further and further towards a historic premillenialist view but sympathetic towards progressive dispensationalism (future role of Israel, not the separate people/separate destinies nonsense of the classic dispensationalists). My position on the "Rapture" is Pre-wrath? definitely! Pre-trib? I hope so!

My backup position is "Pan-millennialism" but just the same, I see the end times scenario leading to Christ's appearing being the same nonetheless (man of sin, trumpets, vials, seals, battle of armageddon, etc.). We'll just have to wait and see what happens after that.

I said "Maybe" because of the imminence of Christ's appearing plus there will be a "Catching Away" some time prior to Christ's return to Olivet and God's people will all be looking at Christ from his "backside" as he is doing his thing with the blood up to the horse's bridle, birds feasting, etc.

 

[biscuit1953]

Matt 13:54And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? 57And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. 58And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Was Jesus unable to do things that He wanted to do among His people? Or rather did He know they would reject His offer to heal them and choose to use their unbelief as opportunity and reason to do something elsewhere?

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Did God plan Jesus' crucifixion, or did evil Jews put Him on the cross. The premise for the question is faulty, just as yours is.

You make a solid, logical point. No matter who may be right on some of these things, God was and is in control of everything down to the last molecule. God raises men up for certain purposes but nothing man does can thwart God's plans even if we don't fully understand how these things work together to accomplish these things.

 

[Ransom]

58And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Was Jesus unable to do things that He wanted to do among His people? Or rather did He know they would reject His offer to heal them and choose to use their unbelief as opportunity and reason to do something elsewhere?

"Did not" doesn't imply "could not."

"Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves" (John 6:36). Jesus knew the motivations of the crowds that followed him. The signs were there to validate Jesus's teaching. If the Nazarenes rejected his authority, then he wasn't under any obligation to show them the conjuring act.

Matt. 13:58 doesn't say anything about illinoisguy's point one way or the other.

 

[biscuit1953]

"Did not" doesn't imply "could not."

"Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves" (John 6:36). Jesus knew the motivations of the crowds that followed him. The signs were there to validate Jesus's teaching. If the Nazarenes rejected his authority, then he wasn't under any obligation to show them the conjuring act.

Matt. 13:58 doesn't say anything about illinoisguy's point one way or the other.

Mark 6:5 And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.
Mark 6:6 And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went about among the villages teaching.

 

[voicecrying]

It must be true!

 

[biscuit1953]

It must be true!

View attachment 7839

When William Carey wanted to go to India a preacher, said to him, “Sit down, young man. When God wants to reach the nations, he’ll do it without your help.” In other words, “Don’t you go out there and preach the gospel indiscriminately to those pagans. You might tempt somebody to embrace the gospel when they’re not elect.”

Hyper-Calvinism - “The emphasis is put so completely on the unconditional election of God and the spiritual deadness of man and the sovereignty of grace in conversion (all of which are true) that the irrational and unbiblical inference is drawn that we should not say to any non-elect person who’s spiritually dead, “Repent. Believe. Come to Christ.” We should never preach like that. We should never indiscriminately say to a whole crowd of people, many of whom would be non-elect, “Come to Christ. Repent. Believe.” John Piper explaining Hyper-Calvinism

What Is Hyper-Calvinism?

Doctrinal systems can help us summarize the Bible’s teaching, but they are never a substitute for Scripture itself.

www.desiringgod.org

Let us take examples like that and make it the face of Calvinism. That is just as dishonest as taking extreme examples of Dispensationalism and smearing anyone who may have a different understanding of God’s dealing with Israel.