Archive for Rapture
The Basis of Our Expectation
When most Christians think about the parousia of Christ, at which time both the dead and living in Christ are to be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4: 16-17), they think of it as an imminent expectation. That is, the rapture and resurrection of believers is something that can occur during any generation. It doesn’t matter whether you are pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib; if you are solidly evangelical in your views, then you believe that the rapture intimately concerns you. Very well. But while the doctrine of imminency is confessed by all, it is less often understood why this element is essential to a true unfolding of the Gospel message.
We are aware of some who would postpone Christ’s second advent to a far future time. They urge Christians not to look for the second coming, which is the blessed hope of the church (Titus 2: 13), but for the evangelization of the world. They urge us to buy houses and cars, plant vineyards and oliveyards, make investments, and look for long-term schemes to reach fruition. One writer has even suggested that Christ will not return for another 36,000 years! This is wrong, all wrong. If only the truths concerning this matter were better understood, Christians would shun any doctrine that seeks to put off the coming of the King to receive us unto Himself.
The doctrine of imminency is indeed important, and is based – believe it or not – on the substitutionary, sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6: 23). Christ paid the wages when He died on Calvary’s cross. Hence, Christ’s death is substitutionary in nature. That is a simple equation, and easy to understand – as it well should be.
Think about it for a moment. If Christ’s death was substitutionary (which all Protestants admit), then it is evident that regenerate Christians need not die. That is, there is no more necessity for undergoing death. Wherefore Paul explicitly teaches: “Behold, we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed” (1 Cor. 15: 51). That is, not all members of the Body of Christ shall undergo physical death; but regardless of whether we live or die, we shall all be tranformed into the image of Christ. In this regard, nothing has changed since the apostle penned these words.
For any Christian to claim that all the members of Christ’s body on earth at any given time must needs fall asleep in death, is to subvert this truth, and to demonstrate ignorance of the springhead whence it flows. Sometimes Preterists seek to solve the problem of imminency by relegating all the “expectation passages” to the first century, and positing their fulfillment in A.D. 70. But this method is inconsistent, and inadequate to deal with the facts. Paul’s teaching in Philippians 3: 20-21 places the rapture of believers in the immediate foreview of the church. Since the transformation of the living and dead did not occur in the first century, it is clear that it must still occupy an important place in our daily walk. There is only one body and one faith (Ephesians 4: 4-5). The church has received but one set of marching orders. How faithfully we adhere to these marching orders will reveal our value as stewards. It is a matter which concerns “all” (Luke 12: 41-48).
The questions we must ask is: Did Christ die for our sins? Was He raised for our justification? Is He coming again? If you answer yes to all three of these questions, then you will have to place more importance on the second coming, if you haven’t already. For the return of Christ is bound up with His sacrificial death on Calvary’s cross, and is therefore part of that “good news” which we are to preach. Any man who seeks to deny or wilfully obscure such good news will have something to answer for at the judgment seat of seat.
Review Of Fred DeRuvo’s “Does Believing And Espousing The Pre-Trib Rapture Create Unprepared Christians Doomed To Hell?”
I recently got through reading another brand new 168-page book by Fred DeRuvo, a Christian author, teacher, and lecturer, who has written a variety of excellent materials in support of Dispensationalism. This guy is really amazing. After closing the book, I am left with the impression that by the time I am finished writing this review, he will have written and published at least three or four more books which definitively slam some particular argument levied against Dispensational theology.
In his latest work, DeRuvo takes up a touchy subject, and handles it with a great deal of Christian forbearance, not to mention rhetorical restraint in matters which easily send most people climbing the walls in anger. DeRuvo’s purpose is to showcase the unfair and uncharitable allegations of a large group of eschatological die-harders who claim that belief in a Pre-Tribulational rapture is inherently evil and will send people to hell.
When I first heard these arguments awhile back, I was surprised that anyone would come to such a conclusion. However, from reading DeRuvo’s book it appears that such opinions are represented by a large majority of those who fall into the “post trib” perspective. DeRuvo mentions many of them by name, and proceeds to document some of their crazy insinuations, even giving the substance of personal emails which were sent to him by people like Tim Warner and C.H. Fisher.
DeRuvo handles their allegations one by one, in his typical methodical manner. He shows what the real trouble with these people is, namely that they are overly dogmatic, and too often unwilling (or unable) to document the assertions they make. Not only that, but they make no attempt to keep their rhetoric within the bounds of Christian courtesy. Rather, they are better known for spitting vitriol at whoever disagrees with them.
The belief that a “Pre-Trib” rapture produces lazy and spiritually unprepared Christians is aptly answered by Fred when he writes:
“To claim that believing and espousing the Pre-Trib rapture creates lazy, spiritually weak, unprepared Christians, is like saying that by teaching that I could die today, I am apt to become lazy, immature, carnal, and worldly! It is the same thing, folks! I know there is a chance that I will leave this earth and be taken into His Presence before this day is over, whether by death, or by Rapture, that will (or should), give me a greater sense of what is and what is not important! It is as simple as that, and there is NO way to deny it.” (pg. 68).
The author then exposes one of the real reasons why these folks are so often against Pre-Tribulational teachings. It it because they deny the Protestant doctrine of “Eternal Security.” Fred quotes a large section from Tim Warner’s website, demonstrating that Warner himself (as so many like him) reject the “Eternal Security of the believer,” and actually teach a Romanistic concept of grace plus works. This seems to form the foundation of their apologetic attitude toward Dispensationalism in general.
DeRuvo also responds to their treatment – or should we say, mistreatment? — of the “early church fathers,” as they dismiss any evidence which validates a pre-tribulational understanding, while dogmatically fixating on statements which they use to bolster post-tribulationism. DeRuvo finds that in many instances, their ears are really closed to reasonable and constructive dialogue. Having headed out with their torches and pack-staves, no one can turn them aside.
What makes such behavior even worse, however, are the unfair insinuations and representations of people like Dave MacPherson, who actually had the nerve to call Thomas Ice’s academic validity in question. Although facts relating to Tyndale Seminary were produced in Ice’s favor (and DeRuvo is a graduate of Tyndale, who can attest to the documentary evidence given in his book), Ice revealed to the author that MacPherson never apologized to him for making crooked implications and misrepresentations regarding his seminary degree.
All in all, DeRuvo presents a very informative, well-balanced defense of Dispensational teaching. And he does so in a contained and reflective manner. He wraps up the book by stating that while it is easy for Christians to get carried away by bickering about non-essentials, it is not always easy to keep one’s focus on glorifying God and maintaining Christian unity regarding the essential doctrines of our faith. After reading this work, I am rather convinced than otherwise that the adversaries and opponents of Dispensationalism are not quite in tune with the mind of Christ.
For those interested in this book, copies presently may be obtained at Fred DeRuvo’s website. When Amazon makes this available, I will include a page-link. Incidentally, I am now in process of reviewing two more of Fred DeRuvo’s recent works, and am aware that another one is on its way! The author of this blog extends a cordial thanks to DeRuvo for making such books available to the Christian public. God is definitely using him, and I pray that special blessings will be shed on him and his ministry.
E.W. Bullinger And The Rapture
One of E.W. Bullinger’s greatest attributes was the ease with which he amended his views in light of his acquisition of fresh truth. He once said: “If anyone would know what I believe upon a subject, he must find out what I believe now.” Never claiming to have all the answers, Bullinger worked over a period of many years to produce a system of theology that is still airtight against the arguments of rationalism, Higher Criticism, and Replacement Theology. During the closing years of his ministry, he grappled with the doctrines of Preterism; and his researches in this field produced the monumental work, “The Lord Hath Spoken: Foundations of Dispensational Truth” (1913). Although hastily written, the amount of scholarship poured into this work is amazing.
But because Bullinger modified his views on the rapture, many Dispensationalists steer away from his books, thinking that perhaps he capitulated on his stance toward pre-tribulationism. Well, this is not the case at all! While Bullinger revised his views concerning the timing of 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians 15, he never wavered from his belief that the church would not enter into the tribulation. In fact, Bullinger did more than any other writer to retain the distinction between the church and Israel. This comes into play more explicitly in his later writings, in which he draws a Dispensational frontier at Acts 28.
Bullinger believed that the Book of Acts describes the transition from the kingdom to the church. In his scheme the church of the “one body” actually begins after Acts 28. The Acts Dispensation chronicles the final offer of the kingdom to the children of Israel upon the one condition of national repentance (see Acts 3: 19-21). When Israel rejected this offer in Acts 28, the nation was temporarily set aside by God as unuseable, and salvation sent to the Gentiles. A new body began to be formed at this juncture, designated by Paul as “one new man” (Eph. 2: 15). According to Bullinger, this is where the church age officially begins.
Although I do not agree with Bullinger’s teaching concerning the commencement of the Christian church, I tend to agree that the Book of Acts is transitional in nature, and that the present parenthetical Dispensation begins after Acts 28: 28. However, in my understanding the ‘pure parenthesis‘ does not officially begin until A.D. 70, when the “people of the prince” sacked Jerusalem (Dan. 9: 26). The period between this desolation of the city and the sanctuary and the advent of the “prince” himself, is filled up by the present Dispensation of Grace. Not that grace didn’t have a place before A.D. 70. But that from A.D. 30-70 the Israel question was being settled — ”Let the children first be filled“ (Mark 7: 27). The Gentile economy did not come into full swing until Israel lost its dispensational advantage over the Gentiles. This was in A.D. 70.
Clarence Larkin seemed to hint as much when he wrote: “This Dispensation [i.e., the church age] is a parenthetical Dispensation thrown in between the ‘Dispersion’ of Israel, and their ‘Restoration’ to their own land. The purpose of this Dispensation is to gather out a ‘People for His Name,’ called the church, composed of both Jew and Gentile” (Dispensational Truth, 1920 edition, pg. 39).
If Larkin saw the parenthesis of the present age as connected with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, then it quite possible that he derived his views from Bullinger. Even modern scholars such as Randall Price, have marked on their prophecy charts the significance of A.D. 70 in God’s purpose to call out the church (see Jerusalem In Prophecy, pg. 234, 239, 257). Larkin, however, does mention that the Dispensation of Grace extends from the Cross (A.D. 30) to the Crown (Second Coming of Christ). Perhaps he saw the 40 years between the Cross and the destruction of Jerusalem as transitional in nature. We’ll probably never know.
Anyhow, because Thessalonians and Corinthians were written prior to the Acts 28 council, Bullinger construed that the rapture of saints described therein must be tied to Israel’s kingdom blessings (which were forfeited and postponed in Acts 28), rather than to the church age proper. I would, again, disagree with him on this point. However, far from denying the pre-trib rapture, Bullinger saw Paul’s later revelation of the “ex-anastasis” and “calling on high” (see Phil. 3: 11, 14) as entirely pre-tribulational in nature.
In the Companion Bible, he writes:
“The term ‘resurrection of the dead’ (anastasis nekron) is of frequent occurrence (Matt. 22: 31; Acts 17: 32; 23: 6; 1 Cor. 15: 12, 13, 21, 42; Heb. 6: 2, etc.), and includes the resurrection to life, of the just, and the resurrection to judgment, of the unjust (John 5: 29; Luke 20: 35; Acts 4: 2). Resurrection from the dead (ek nekron) implies the resurrection of some, the former of these two classes, the others being left behind. See Luke 20: 35; Acts 4: 2. Paul had no doubt of attaining to this, as as may be seen from 1 Thessalonians 4: 15-17, written some ten years before. The exanastasis must therefore mean a further selection of some before the anastasis of 1 Thess. 4: 14, and Paul was not yet sure of attaining to this. Perhaps he had the assurance when he wrote 2 Tim. 4: 7. It is noteworthy that there is no reference to any living ones being caught up, or any parousia of the Lord, as in 1 Thess. 4: 15, 16.” (note on Philippians 3: 11, Companion Bible, pg. 1778).
In his later books, Bullinger seemed to relegate the rapture of 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians 15 to the close of Daniel’s 70th week. But since he held that Acts 28: 28 commenced a new economy, he saw in Philippians 3: 14 the church’s charter for a pre-tribulational up-calling. As he came to this view gradually, his books must be diligently studied in order to see exactly how his understanding of the rapture evolved.
In later years, theologians such as A.E. Knoch corrected Bullinger on some of his views. Whereas others took the more unique elements of Bullinger’s theology and ran them out into what is now known as “Acts 28 Dispensationalism.” Interestingly, however, all of Bullinger’s works are still in print today; and though he exercises little influence in modern Dispensational circles, his contributions to Biblical and exegetical scholarship are never downplayed. It is hoped that in future months his work will be seriously studied afresh by all who love the “sure word of prophecy” (2 Peter 1: 19) and look for that “blessed hope” (Titus 2: 13).
When Wright Equals Wrong
One of the most notable errors foisted in recent years upon the Christian community is the allegation that Paul’s description of the resurrection and rapture of the saints, as given in 1 Thess. 4: 16-17, is not to be taken literally, but rather in an allegorical sense.
In N.T. Wright’s article, “Farewell To The Rapture,” the bold statement is made that the literal interpretation of the text, as endorsed by most Christians, is a “distortion.” Wright repeatedly makes reference to Paul’s “metaphorical language.”
“Little did Paul know how his colorful metaphors for Jesus’ second coming would be misunderstood two millennia later.”
“Paul’s mixed metaphors of trumpets blowing and the living being snatched into heaven to meet the Lord are not to be understood as literal truth.”
“Paul’s misunderstood metaphors present a challenge for us: How can we reuse biblical imagery, including Paul’s, so as to clarify the truth, not distort it?”
In my last post, “What Wright Represents,” I made reference to his article, and pointed out that Paul’s description of the rapture does not contain a single metaphor.
A metaphor is a figure of speech which can always be identified. But where does this figure ocur in 1 Thess. 4: 16-17? Unfortunately, Wright doesn’t tell us. Instead, he makes the blanket statement that Paul is employing metaphorical language, and then asserts that Christians don’t understand Paul’s metaphors!
It is clear from a reading of Wright’s article, that the “misunderstanding” is coming from the bishop’s end.
As mentioned, the debate among evangelicals concerning the rapture has to do with timing alone. It does not concern the literality of the language. Those who deny that Paul’s language is to be taken in its natural and most obvious sense, place themselves in a totally different ball-park. After all, there’s no discussing “timing” with someone who doesn’t believe in the reality of the doctrine.
Instead of taking his stance in the opposite camp, however, Wright wobbles about. After marking Paul’s language as metaphorical, he puts forward a quasi-literal interpretation of the rapture. Wright calls 1 Thess. 4: 16-17 a “brighly colored version” of the transformation of the saints, which Paul writes of in 1 Cor. 15: 51-54 and Phil. 3: 20-21.
This leaves me wondering whether Wright has all his cards in order. I mean, why would he look for a literal resurrection in a passage which he identifies as “not to be taken literally??”
Let’s suppose I’m a Preterist. Couldn’t I claim that 1 Thess. 4 & 1 Cor. 15 use physical “symbols” to describe events which will transpire in the spiritual realm? Considering the fact that most Preterists spiritualize Daniel 12: 2, relegating fulfillment to A.D. 70, why couldn’t I do the same with other New Testament texts which speak of resurrection within a first-century context?
It appears Wright is playing fast and loose with language. While he denies the interpretation given this passage by students of prophecy, he admits of a certain literality, which almost amounts to the exact same thing.
Well, if Wright admits that Paul’s description offers proof of a literal resurrection, then he should stop claiming that the passage is “metaphorical.” If 1Thess. 4: 16-17 is talking about a literal catching up of the saints, then how is the doctrine of the rapture a “distortion?”
After reading Wright’s article more carefully, it appears that the bone of contention involves not so much the future actuality of the event, as the worldview endorsed by Lahaye and Jenkins. Wright says: “Is not the Left Behind mentality in thrall to a dualistic view of reality that allows people to pollute God’s world on the grounds that it’s all going to be destroyed soon?”
This is an unfair allegation, and qualifies as a straw-man argument. I know of nobody — even among the most avid enthusiasts of the rapture – who uses 1 Thess. 4: 16-17 an an excuse to pollute the world. Does Wright supply citations to back his insinuations? Of course not.
What Wright evidently doesn’t like is the doctrine of imminency, which kills his concept of a victorious visible church. According to Wright, “holy mother church” must have her day in the sun, before Jesus is allowed to come back.
But this not the worldview endorsed in the New Testament. The ideal Christian is represented as one who has turned from idols, and is now awaiting God’s Son from heaven (1 Thess. 1: 9-10). Those who have been buried with Christ and spiritually risen in Him are looking for deliverance from their mortal bodies (Romans 7: 24). To postpone the “day of redemption” by thousands of years, just so an “organization” can gain its cherished supremacy, is unthinkable to those who are truly living their faith.
Evidently, Wright’s brand of Christianity is based on a misinterpretation of Matt. 16: 18, in which Christ promised that the “gates of hell” would not prevail against His church. Contrary to the claims of dominion theology, the ecclesia to which Christ refers is not the “church visible,” but the “church which is His body” — the invisible assembly of the elect. It is this church against which the gates of hell will not prevail. History has already demonstrated that the visible church can (and often does) apostasize.
Although I haven’t read much of his material, it would appear that Bishop Wright endorses the Roman Catholic concept of the kingdom, which looks for a perfected government on earth, but apart from the personal presence of the King. Whereas those who believe in a literal rapture affirm that there can be no kingdom without the presence of the King! Naturally, one’s theology will determine what importance he/she places on the doctrine of Christ’s second advent.
Those who make the parousia tantamount to the demolition of an earthly building will tend to downgrade the relevance of passages which speak of Christ’s return to gather His elect. Whereas those who see the parousia for what it is, will take these passages to heart, and view them as having vital significance.
While it is clear that Wright does not deny the fact that Christ will one day return to glorify the saints, he waters it down to the point where it becomes inconsequential to the believer. The error enters when Wright begins playing with the meaning of language. By the time he gets through, the doctrine is stripped of its true significance, and made to mean whatever Wright (or anyone else) wants it to mean. In this case, Wright equals Wrong.
What Wright Represents
To those who read this blog, it may come as a surprise to hear that I used to be a Roman Catholic. I’m not kidding. I was sprinkled as an infant. I attended “mass” in my formative years. For the greater part of my life I belonged to ”holy mother church.” However, due to my unregenerate nature, I seldom attended.
It wasn’t until I was 29 years old that I was truly regenerated by the grace of God. Then the first thing I wanted to do was experience true Christian fellowship. So after briefly attending a Pentecostal church, I moved to an Independent Fundamental Baptist congregation. I was soon baptized by immersion, and joined the church.
Those were some of the best services I ever attended, because the preaching was heartfelt. What a difference between those services and the superstitious ceremonialism to which I had been accustomed my entire life.
In time I began to live the Pauline doctrine, in which the Christian is pictured as buried with Christ, and risen through faith of the operation of God (Col. 2: 12); seated in heavenly places with Christ (Eph. 2: 6), and free from the bondage of ordinances (Col. 2: 20-23). Because of my new spiritual life I saw the importance between a worship in Spirit and truth and one based on “weak and beggarly elements.”
But the most important difference, I think, was the fact that in my church the Word of God was deemed essential in all points; whereas the Roman Catholics relied heavily, if not exclusively, on tradition in order to bolster their views. Having once drunk in the pure waters of the written Word, I had no desire to turn back to the obfuscations of Rome.
Of course, I went off on a tangent when I briefly accepted the false doctrines of Hyper-Preterism. But that was only because I had left the “grammatical, contextual, historical” interpretative method behind, and succumbed to the teachings of Gnostic commentators who, like alchemists, make Scripture mean whatever they want.
In returning to the truth, I eventually saw that the interpretive principles espoused by Protestants demand perspicuity of the word and clear exegesis. This is the foundation on which our faith must be built. If man is allowed to inject his literary concepts into the Word, then we may as well throw our Bibles away.
In recent years, however, there has arisen a class of men who, claiming to be Protestant, would yet drag us back into the dark ages of Romanism with their shibboleths and dark sentences. Some of these men hold high positions in the established church. A great majority deny the doctrine of Christ’s second advent, or dilute its significance by claiming that when Christ spoke of His “return,” He was really talking about the destruction of an earthly building.
These false prophets of Christendom are steadfastly against the sufficiency of Scripture alone to determine matters of doctrine. N.T. Wright (pictured at top left) is one of these individuals, who claims that Matthew 31: 31-46 was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Wright is Anglican bishop of Durham, whose books are lauded by those who accept his concept of Christianity.
Wright’s teachings on eschatology are also admired by Hyper-Preterists, inasmuch as he relegates much of what Christians consider “end time” phenomena to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Despite the fact that such teachings have been repeatedly invalidated by conservative Bible scholars, Wright’s following has swelled considerably in recent years.
Like Romanists in general, Wright places an undue emphasis on the visible church, and on ecclesiastical authority, while he butchers the Scriptures in an attempt to put off Christ’s second coming, so that “holy mother church” can take over the world. Obviously, Scripture has to mean what Wright wants it to mean, aside from the customary laws of grammar and rhetoric.
Evidently what Wright and his followers wish to reverse is the massive progress made in hermeneutics during the past two hundred years. I am talking about the “historical, grammatical, contextual” mode of interpretation. The system of reading the Scriptures according to the natural sense, without the aid of special “interpreters“ or benches of bishops, is despised by men of Wright’s stamp.
As I watch Wright’s maneuvers in the evangelical world, I can’t help but think the old battle between priestcraft and pure Christianity is on once more. The priest would hold the key of knowledge above the heads of the people. Whereas evangelical Christianity says just the opposite, affirming that the Scriptures are a revelation from God, which must be believed and received by faith.
In his article “Farewell to The Rapture,” Wright demonstrates his unwillingness to believe the Word of God. Speaking of 1 Thess. 4: 16-17, he makes reference to “Paul’s misunderstood metaphors,” and claims that the description of the catching away of the saints is not to be understood according to the literal sense. In Wright’s view, that is a “distortion.”
Now, among evangelicals there is quite a deal of debate concerning the rapture. However, the debate has always involved matters of timing, and not the reality of the doctrine itself. People who read their Bibles don’t need to be told that Paul’s epistolary communications were written to make matters of Christian doctrine clear, and not to conceal mysteries. However, Wright would us accept these writings (and 1 Thessalonians in particular) as a riddle which only the priests can unravel.
I would be interested to know where Wright gets the idea that Paul is using metaphorical language. Metaphors can always be identified. Concerning this figure of speech, E.W. Bullinger writes:
“Let it be clearly understood that a Metaphor is confined to a distinct affirmation that one thing IS another thing, owing to some association or connection in the uses or effects of anything expressed or understood. The two nouns themselves must both be mentioned, and are always to be taken in their absolutely literal sense, or else no one can tell what they mean. The figure lies wholly in the verb, or copula, which in English must always be expressed, and never understood by Ellipsis.
“For example, ‘All flesh is grass.’ Here ‘flesh‘ is to be taken literally as the subject spoken of, and ‘grass‘ is to be taken equally literally as that which represents ‘flesh.’ All the figure lies in the verb ‘IS.’ The statement is made under strong feeling, the mind realizing some point of association; but instead of using the more measured verb ‘resembles,’ or ‘is like‘; which would be truer to fact, though not so true to feeling; the verb ‘is‘ is used, and the meaning of one thing is carried across and transferred to the other. It is not, as some might think, a mere Hebrew idiom to use “is” for “represents;” but it is a necessity of language arising from the actual condition and character of the human mind.” (Figures of Speech, pg. 735-736).
Bullinger goes on to give several examples of metaphorical usage. But none of these examples fit Paul’s language in 1 Thess. 4. In fact, after a detailed examination of the passage in question, I’ve concluded that it does not contain a single metaphor. What, then, can Wright be talking about? It is evident that what the bishop really meant is that Paul’s language is “symbolical.” However, there is nothing in the context which gives us any indication of a symbolical usage.
No. The worthy prelate is wrong. Paul was revealing facts for the edification of those to whom he wrote. His words are to be understood according to their plain and natural sense.
It is strange that one who would find symbolical elements in Paul’s epistolary writings should fail to properly understand the typical significance of those rites and ordinances of the Mosaic law, which are done away in Christ. Wright’s religion stands in quite as much ceremonialism as the Catholic church. But a good Protestant would respond that the ordinances are only ”symbolic” of spiritual truths, and should not be played out literally! You see, Wright’s doctrine and practice are not matching up.
What does Wright represent? Obviously, his mode of interpretation justifies priestcraft. It presupposes the insufficiency of the believer to come to Christ, and Him alone, and to be led and guided by the Scriptures, without submitting to the traditions of the elders. Instead of insisting (as we do) that Christians accept God’s interpretation of His own Word, Wright suggests that we follow his interpretation, which justifies the perpetuity of an elite priesthood.
Because Wright stands for what a large portion of Christianity today advocates, I urge readers once more to stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and to be not entanged again with the yoke of bondage (Gal. 5: 1). In short, may God deliver us from all harlotry – whether it be Roman or Protestant.
Preterism And The Rapture
Does Preterism preserve the correct concept of the rapture? Although most orthodox Preterists do maintain the reality of the doctrine, Hyper-Preterists go far astray in their interpretation of the rapture as a non-physical event. In this full-length Bible study podcast we examine the doctrine of the rapture, and show that it will occur in the middle of Daniel’s 70th week. We also cover Scriptures dealing with Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the “last trump.” This is a must-listen for anyone who really wants to know the truth regarding the rapture!
Listen now: http://antipreterist.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/preterism_and_the_rapture.mp3
Rev. E.W. Bullinger, D.D.– On The Dispensation Of Grace
(from How To Enjoy The Bible, 1916)
In this the fourth Dispensation neither Jews nor Gentiles are dealt with as such: but, individuals, both “transgressors” of the Jews and “sinners of the Gentiles,” are called out, and made into a new body, a third People, called “the Church of God,” in which now “there is neither Jew nor Gentile…but all are one in Christ Jesus“; being baptized into the body of Christ, not with the old material element of water, but with the new spiritual medium or element of pneuma hagion (Gal 3:27,28).
All this had been kept secret until it was revealed to Paul and made known by the prophets and apostles in “prophetic writings” (Rom 16:25,26).
Had it been made the subject of prophecy the Jew, to-day, could reply against God and say that he was obliged to fulfil prophecy. It was therefore “hid in God” (Eph 3:9). God kept the secret to Himself. What He would have done had the nation of Israel obeyed the command to repent, in Acts 3:19, 20, none can tell. God is sovereign, and we may be perfectly sure that the Scripture would have been fulfilled. Nothing was unforeknown, or unforeseen; for the members of the Church of God were “chosen in Christ BEFORE the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4). All we can say is that “the secret things belong unto God.” Those that are revealed alone concern us.
One of these secrets, the “Great” one (1 Tim 3:16; Eph 5:32), has been revealed; and we now rejoice in its revelation.
This Dispensation of “the Church of God,” of “the grace of God,” and of the “Spirit of God” commenced outwardly by the ministry of Paul, in the Dispensation or administration committed formally to him; and inwardly by the revelation of the mystery as further set forth in its fulness in those epistles which he wrote from his prison in Rome: Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians.
This Dispensation will end by the members of Christ’s body, the Church of the living God, being “received up in glory” (1 Tim 3:16); “caught up to meet the Lord in the air, so to be ever with the Lord” (1 Thess 4:17; Phil 3:20,21). This is called in 2 Thessalonians 2:1, “our gathering together unto Him“; and this glorious rapture will close this fourth Dispensation.
The one object, therefore, of this Dispensation is not, as is popularly supposed, the conversion of the world; still less its social improvement: but the formation of the one spiritual Body of Christ by calling out those who were chosen in Him “before the foundation of the world.”
To that end, and that alone, is this good news made known to-day in all the world. In no former Dispensation was such a Gospel ever preached; and in no subsequent one will the good news of such free grace be proclaimed.
