Will the Rapture Happen Tomorrow?

Will the Rapture Happen Tomorrow?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 4 57.1%

  • Maybe

    Votes: 3 42.9%
  • Total voters
    7
biscuit1953 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Except that he could, because he did some--albeit a few discreet healings, not the spectacular miracles of the previous chapter.

So whatever "could not" means, it wasn't a lack of power or ability, and unless you're again earnestly contending for the Dispensationalist doctrine of the failure of God, he wasn't prevented by some force external to himself.
 
Ransom said:
Except that he could, because he did some--albeit a few discreet healings, not the spectacular miracles of the previous chapter.

So whatever "could not" means, it wasn't a lack of power or ability, and unless you're again earnestly contending for the Dispensationalist doctrine of the failure of God, he wasn't prevented by some force external to himself.
Click to expand...
Jesus was a great healer (Mark 3:9-10). He healed some because of the faith of the ones that were sick (Matt 9:29). Some were healed in response to the faith of other people (Luke 7:1-10). He also healed when there was no faith apparent at all (Luke 22:50-51). He performed his miracles by his own power, not their faith. In Matt 17:19-20 a miracle was not performed because of the lack of faith of the healer, not the healee! The indication is they didn’t want any mighty works by the Lord Jesus Christ. I don’t get your point except to backtrack on your statement that the scriptures did not say “could not.” I agree with you 100% that Jesus “was not prevented by some force external to himself.”
 
Last edited:
biscuit1953 said:
I don’t get your point except to backtrack on your statement that the scriptures did not say “could not.”
Click to expand...

I didn't say "the scriptures." I was addressing the specific Scripture cited. So once again, not knowing my point, you charge in anyway, and miss it.

biscuit1953 said:
I agree with you 100% that Jesus “was not prevented by some force external to himself.”
Click to expand...

So for what purpose are you disputing with me, except to hear yourself talk?
 
Ransom said:
"Did not" doesn't imply "could not."
Click to expand...
Agree. Wasn't implying anything contrary. He can do whatever He chooses, but the passage in question shows that He accomplishes His will either through, or in spite of man. The "pause" in the offer of the kingdom could be looked at similarly.
 
ALAYMAN said:
Agree. Wasn't implying anything contrary. He can do whatever He chooses, but the passage in question shows that He accomplishes His will either through, or in spite of man. The "pause" in the offer of the kingdom could be looked at similarly.
Click to expand...

Sure ... if we were dealing with a being with imperfect knowledge or control of future human thought or deed. And, of course, we're not process theologians or open theists.
 
Ransom said:
Sure ... if we were dealing with a being with imperfect knowledge or control of future human thought or deed. And, of course, we're not process theologians or open theists.
Click to expand...

Be patient with me here, because I'm not following your logic. God has demonstrated that He uses man's sin, as well as obedience to accomplish His will. If He chose to offer the kingdom (just as the argument from a Calvinist perspective of the free offer of the gospel is legitimate) and knew in advance that that offer would be rejected, how would it be a form of open theism or process theology to suggest that it was His sovereign will to pass over the Jews timeline for when to establish the new heavens and earth?
 
ALAYMAN said:
If He chose to offer the kingdom (just as the argument from a Calvinist perspective of the free offer of the gospel is legitimate) and knew in advance that that offer would be rejected, how would it be a form of open theism or process theology to suggest that it was His sovereign will to pass over the Jews timeline for when to establish the new heavens and earth?
Click to expand...

It's claimed that Jesus would have established the Kingdom in the first century (thus fulfilling prophecy), but the Jews rejected him, thus requiring that a prophecy intended to be fulfilled in that event was delayed to some distant, indefinite future.

This is nonsense. If a prophet gets all the details right in his prophecy, except the timing (because he didn't foresee the Jews rejecting Christ), then his prophecy is wrong, and he is a false prophet.

If God would have done one thing if not for circumstances, and those circumstances caused a prophecy's fulfillment to be delayed into the indefinite future, how does that differ from open theism--saying God didn't see the circumstances coming?

Of course, Jesus did not come to establish a temporal kingdom in the first century. The Jews tried to crown him king at one point, and he ran away. When he said to Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world, he was telling Pilate that he wasn't horning in on his turf. Then the Dispensationalists came along and insisted that yes, it was in fact that kind of temporal kingdom.
 
Last edited:
"In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." -Matthew 3:2

"Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." -Mark 1:14-15

"And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand." - Matthew 10:7

The principles of dispensationalism, if accepted, would require us to reject John the Baptist and Christ as false prophets. If the Kingdom was not "at hand," not even close to it, if the time for the Kingdom was not fulfilled at that time, if the Kingdom was not to come for at least 2000 more years, then we have no choice but to reject them as false prophets.

Just what kind of people reject the New Testament teaching that Christ successfully brought in God's Kingdom? Well, the Pharisees rejected it. Christ told the Pharisees, in response to their objections and taunts, "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." - Matthew 12:28

The Pharisees, like modern dispensationalists, rejected the Kingdom that Christ brought in, because it was not the earthly literal kingdom that the Pharisees wanted. "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold the kingdom of God is within you." -Luke 17-20-21.

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." - Matthew 16:28. My question for dispensationalists who believe in the "deferred kingdom" and the 2000- year "parenthesis" in God's plan, forced on Him by mere mortal men - give us the names and current locations of those who heard Christ's word in Matthew 16:28 and who never died and are still alive today - presumably in old folks' homes somewhere.
 
Ransom said:
It's claimed that Jesus would have established the Kingdom in the first century (thus fulfilling prophecy), but the Jews rejected him, thus requiring that a prophecy intended to be fulfilled in that event was delayed to some distant, indefinite future.

This is nonsense. If a prophet gets all the details right in his prophecy, except the timing (because he didn't foresee the Jews rejecting Christ), then his prophecy is wrong, and he is a false prophet.

If God would have done one thing if not for circumstances, and those circumstances caused a prophecy's fulfillment to be delayed into the indefinite future, how does that differ from open theism--saying God didn't see the circumstances coming?

Of course, Jesus did not come to establish a temporal kingdom in the first century. The Jews tried to crown him king at one point, and he ran away. When he said to Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world, he was telling Pilate that he wasn't horning in on his turf. Then the Dispensationalists came along and insisted that yes, it was in fact that kind of temporal kingdom.
Click to expand...
In all fairness, both Charles Ryrie and Lewis Sperry Chafer were, at the very least, sympathetic to the Calvinist view of God's sovereignty and election. Of course we know MacArthur's position as well. Bearing all this in mind, if the idea of a "Kingdom offered and rejected" bears any weight, I am certain that these men would all agree that God had decreed it to be so rather than God's "reacting" to Israel's rejection.

Of course this all falls on deaf ears as it pertains to the "Free-Willy Dispies" who think we are on some sort of "alternate timeline" or something.

Not that I am defending dispensationalism or anything like that...
 
Baptist Renegade said:
In all fairness, both Charles Ryrie and Lewis Sperry Chafer were, at the very least, sympathetic to the Calvinist view of God's sovereignty and election.
Click to expand...

Yes, Ryrie was more like an Amyraldian. But also an antinomian, not really believing in the Calvinist view of repentance and discipleship.

Wish I had my Ryrie Study Bible at hand. I'd be interested in seeing how he dealt with the no ingdom-prophecy-deferred thing.

Baptist Renegade said:
Of course we know MacArthur's position as well. Bearing all this in mind, if the idea of a "Kingdom offered and rejected" bears any weight, I am certain that these men would all agree that God had decreed it to be so rather than God's "reacting" to Israel's rejection.
Click to expand...

Put a bit more succinctly than my more meandering response, above. A prophecy that certain events do not fulfill, was never intended to be fulfilled in those events.
 
I have to say that reading this thread is refreshing. I know you are disagreeing and maybe talking past each other at times. But you're not calling each other unbelievers or calling each other's view heresy. Its decent disagreement among brothers. That other board which shall not be named, is held hostage by two moderators who hold to Aquinas' view of the atonement (not Penal Substitutionary Atonement) and some stange form of non-sovereignty of God, and anyone who differs from them, they say hold to heresy, and they equate them to Mormons. Its dyng a slow death. And because they're basically the only moderators on there every day, they can say whatever they want with no repurcussions.

Just sayin, I like coming here, because as a Post trib Calvinist, it's been a long time since I was called a heretic here.
 
Baptist Renegade said:
In all fairness, both Charles Ryrie and Lewis Sperry Chafer were, at the very least, sympathetic to the Calvinist view of God's sovereignty and election.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that Charles Ryrie was very Calvinistic in his soteriology.
 
Ransom said:
Yes, Ryrie was more like an Amyraldian. But also an antinomian, not really believing in the Calvinist view of repentance and discipleship.
Click to expand...

What gave you the idea that Ryrie was anti-Lordship?
 
Creed said:
What gave you the idea that Ryrie was anti-Lordship?
Click to expand...
I used to have a Ryrie Study Bible. He was opposed to Lordship salvation and believed repentance was strictly a change of mind, not turning from sin. Just do a quick search on the subject. He may not have been as extreme as Zane Hodge though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top