Is Matthew 24 the rapture ?
- Thread starter throughfaith
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S
Thanks, that helped a little. But you really should just tell us where you got your teachings. I found this:
Hyperdispensationalism
In the 19th century, Anglican clergyman E. W. Bullinger was the father of a system of theology that claimed that the gospel of grace was unknown until it was revealed to Paul. He claimed that the church age as we know it did not begin until Acts 28, when an offer to immediately institute the kingdom of God on earth was withdrawn from Israel. Bullinger claimed that only the prison epistles were binding on the church. Thus Bullinger relegated most of Scripture to a category similar to the book of Leviticus: inspired, but not directly binding on Christians in all of its details. One implication of this teaching is that Jesus' own teachings, including the Great Commission, are not binding or applicable to the church. I label as hyperdispensational this and any other doctrine that claims that the gospel as we know it was first given to Paul sometime toward the middle or the end of Acts.
In 1938 H. A. Ironside wrote a rebuttal to what was then known as Bullingerism entitled Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth.2 This book is still a valuable resource for those who have been confused by the false teachings of hyperdispensationalists. Current hyperdispensationalists distance themselves from Bullinger and resent being linked to him.3
The most popular versions of this doctrine today would prefer simply to be called "dispensationalist" but will tolerate being called "mid-Acts" dispensationalists because, unlike Bullinger, they believe that the gospel of grace that they deem distinctive to Paul was revealed to him somewhere between Acts 9 and Acts 13.4 Les Feldick says this about the point at which Paul was given a never-before known message about the gospel of grace:
Feldick believes that Paul's time gaining this new mystery, that supposedly had not been told to any the other apostles, ended in about 40 A.D. By putting the change of dispensation in the middle of Acts instead of at the end of it as Bullinger does, mid-Acts dispensationalists may avoid a few of Bullinger's extremes but they create a serious exegetical problem for themselves: they ignore the narrative unity of Luke/Acts and make it rather easy to rebut their doctrines based on their use of Acts alone and by itself. I shall demonstrate that shortly.
Hyperdispensationalism
In the 19th century, Anglican clergyman E. W. Bullinger was the father of a system of theology that claimed that the gospel of grace was unknown until it was revealed to Paul. He claimed that the church age as we know it did not begin until Acts 28, when an offer to immediately institute the kingdom of God on earth was withdrawn from Israel. Bullinger claimed that only the prison epistles were binding on the church. Thus Bullinger relegated most of Scripture to a category similar to the book of Leviticus: inspired, but not directly binding on Christians in all of its details. One implication of this teaching is that Jesus' own teachings, including the Great Commission, are not binding or applicable to the church. I label as hyperdispensational this and any other doctrine that claims that the gospel as we know it was first given to Paul sometime toward the middle or the end of Acts.
In 1938 H. A. Ironside wrote a rebuttal to what was then known as Bullingerism entitled Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth.2 This book is still a valuable resource for those who have been confused by the false teachings of hyperdispensationalists. Current hyperdispensationalists distance themselves from Bullinger and resent being linked to him.3
The most popular versions of this doctrine today would prefer simply to be called "dispensationalist" but will tolerate being called "mid-Acts" dispensationalists because, unlike Bullinger, they believe that the gospel of grace that they deem distinctive to Paul was revealed to him somewhere between Acts 9 and Acts 13.4 Les Feldick says this about the point at which Paul was given a never-before known message about the gospel of grace:
Now if you're a Bible student you will catch on real quick that Paul is always referring to the mysteries that were revealed to him. And what are mysteries? Secrets. And Who kept them secret until revealed to this man? God did. And when God called Paul out of the religion of Judaism, and saved him on the road to Damascus, He sent him down to Mt. Sinai and poured out on him for 3 years all the revelations of the mysteries. There are all kinds of mysteries that Paul speaks of in his writings, and since they were revealed to him he then became the steward of those mysteries. And if he was the steward of them then he was the administrator of them. When we understand that, then this Book becomes as plain as a 300 watt light bulb. It just lays right out in front of you. Of course this is a whole new administration or dispensation. 5
Feldick believes that Paul's time gaining this new mystery, that supposedly had not been told to any the other apostles, ended in about 40 A.D. By putting the change of dispensation in the middle of Acts instead of at the end of it as Bullinger does, mid-Acts dispensationalists may avoid a few of Bullinger's extremes but they create a serious exegetical problem for themselves: they ignore the narrative unity of Luke/Acts and make it rather easy to rebut their doctrines based on their use of Acts alone and by itself. I shall demonstrate that shortly.
Please do not confuse the fact that it [that is, relationship with God] has ALWAYS been by/through "FAITH"... [not to confuse] with that of the following, which pertains to "chronology and timing" issues (as these each relate to the term "good news [/gospel]"):
--Matthew 24:14 [26:13] is what WILL BE being preached in the future, specific. limited time-period leading UP TO His Second Coming to the earth (at Rev19), that is IN/DURING/WITHIN the 7-yr trib; it INCLUDES the msg that "the kingdom" will be (at that time) VERY NEAR!; we are not preaching "this particular msg" NOW (and we will not be present on the earth WHEN it WILL BE being preached!
)
--Matthew 24:14 [26:13] is what WILL BE being preached in the future, specific. limited time-period leading UP TO His Second Coming to the earth (at Rev19), that is IN/DURING/WITHIN the 7-yr trib; it INCLUDES the msg that "the kingdom" will be (at that time) VERY NEAR!; we are not preaching "this particular msg" NOW (and we will not be present on the earth WHEN it WILL BE being preached!
)
but rather, relates to the matter of "WHEN" a person comes to faith [whether "NOW" or "IN THE TRIB YRS," or "IN OT TIMES" for that matter... It is always a matter of "FAITH"... but the TIMING is what is DISTINCT, and the particular msgs that apply in each of those particular time-slots, see)
[whether "NOW" or "IN THE TRIB YRS," or "IN OT TIMES" for that matter... It is always a matter of "FAITH"... but the TIMING is what is DISTINCT, and the particular msgs that apply in each of those particular time-slots, see)
IOW, regular ol' dispensationalists ["the Church which is His body" began at Pentecost and that Paul was later tasked with unfolding the doctrines pertaining TO IT] also believe Matthew 24:14 [26:13] is what WILL BE being preached IN/DURING the trib years... so this is not an idea exclusive to "hyper-disp"
Last edited:
According to Romans the gospel was preached to all the world in Paul's day.
Rom 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Why hasn't the world come to end? Because what you think the end of the world means and what the bible means by the end of the world are two different things.
Heb_9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Rom 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Why hasn't the world come to end? Because what you think the end of the world means and what the bible means by the end of the world are two different things.
Heb_9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
No I've never heard of him . I m following what the bible says .
Ok in luke 9.6 :
6¶And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.
Ok we see that they are preaching the ' gospel here .
But when Jesus explains ' the gospel as we would understand it here
31¶Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
32For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
33And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
34¶And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.
Notice they don't know or understand the Gospel as we understand it . So clearly there are two Gospels.
Ok in luke 9.6 :
6¶And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.
Ok we see that they are preaching the ' gospel here .
But when Jesus explains ' the gospel as we would understand it here
31¶Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished.
32For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on:
33And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
34¶And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.
Notice they don't know or understand the Gospel as we understand it . So clearly there are two Gospels.
S
Found it.
Hyperdispensationalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperdispensationalism#Most_notable_proponents
https://cicministry.org/commentary/issue108.htm
Now I know where y'all are getting this confusion. And now so will everyone else. EXPOSED!!!
Hyperdispensationalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperdispensationalism#Most_notable_proponents
https://cicministry.org/commentary/issue108.htm
Now I know where y'all are getting this confusion. And now so will everyone else. EXPOSED!!!
S
Hyperdispensationalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperdispensationalism#Most_notable_proponents
https://cicministry.org/commentary/issue108.htm
Now I know where y'all are getting this confusion. And now so will everyone else. EXPOSED!!!
S
I knew you got your teachings from others because they were too weird for you to make them up on your own and because they sounded familiar. I thought they were maybe taught by an organized group but apparently it is more like bad hermeneutics that are embraced by nondenominational churches here and there. It's just another false teaching that will never get very far but just won't die because it is novel and has the power to draw a following.
You don't believe in baptism in water do you?
You don't believe in baptism in water do you?
S
I and others have thoroughly answered each and every bad interpretation you presented with scriptures and superior exegesis of those scriptures and you simply act like a Jehovah Witness that won't concede and continue using the same bad hermeneutic. You have been "refuted" to the moon and back. Read this link if you need more refuting.
https://cicministry.org/commentary/issue108.htm
https://cicministry.org/commentary/issue108.htm