Grace through faith believers won't be raptured but still get saved?

[Butch5]

(Edit: Response to a deleted portion of a post. Obadiah){ No, he entered hell before died. He preached to the lost in the lower parts(low life) of the earth being the poor and down trodden sinners held captive to the enemies grip of sinful lifestyles.} while i don,t agree with this part paul did say he descended >
Ephesians 4:9King James Version (KJV)
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? and Led captivity captive we simply do not know exactly what he was doing the 3 days ..i do not believe he was just dead on the 3rd day he came alive, peter wrote After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits-- if any one has scripture to say exactly what took place in those 3 days.i would be interested to see it. kathi you seem to be quick to point out error but have failed to post correction

He ascended to heaven, correct? Wouldn't that mean that when He first descended it was to the earth? He says the angles will do this.

51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. (Joh 1:51 KJV)

 

[ezra]

He ascended to heaven, correct? Wouldn't that mean that when He first descended it was to the earth? He says the angles will do this.

see thats just it there are many comments on this . i have heard it said he delivered the Blood sacrifice to his heavenly father.. i also have heard it say he went the lowest parts of the earth and took the keys to Hades from the devil . not sure how i agree on this. but on thing for sure had there not been a Resurrection . we would not have eternal life and had it not been for the cross of Christ there would be no forgiveness of our sins

 

[Butch5]

see thats just it there are many comments on this . i have heard it said he delivered the Blood sacrifice to his heavenly father.. i also have heard it say he went the lowest parts of the earth and took the keys to Hades from the devil . not sure how i agree on this. but on thing for sure had there not been a Resurrection . we would not have eternal life and had it not been for the cross of Christ there would be no forgiveness of our sins

Those things assume that He was alive, yet Scripture says He was crucified.

35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. (Mat 27:35 KJV)

 

[Pizza]

(Edit, ToS 2.4, rudeness. Obadiah) a lot of what you say does not make sense (Edit: to me).

She is defining "hell" as something experienced here on earth.

4afaithfulone:
When you change the definitions of common words like that, it is hard to understand what you are saying. And, of course, when you play fast and loose with language like that - you can get the Bible to "say" almost anything.

 

[ezra]

Those things assume that He was alive, yet Scripture says He was crucified.

35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. (Mat 27:35 KJV)

on my part i am not denying the death of Christ on the cross . he was put to death by the flesh but quickened by the spirit. we dont know exactly what was taking place in the tomb.. we dont know how long the grave clothes and the folded face napkin had been there before the stone was rolled away. the Bible says he will arise on the 3rd day. no doubt he was physically dead when placed in the tomb.. at what point he became alive remains a mystery

 

[Butch5]

on my part i am not denying the death of Christ on the cross . he was put to death by the flesh but quickened by the spirit. we dont know exactly what was taking place in the tomb.. we dont know how long the grave clothes and the folded face napkin had been there before the stone was rolled away. the Bible says he will arise on the 3rd day. no doubt he was physically dead when placed in the tomb.. at what point he became alive remains a mystery

Wouldn't that be the third day?

46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: (Luk 24:46 KJV)

 

[Kathi]

(Post deleted. Response to a deleted portion of a post. Obadiah)

 

[Kathi]

(Edit: A&T Guidelines: "Subsequent opposing responses should include references to supportive scripture relevant to the thread and offer explanation for the contrary understanding." Obadiah)

 

[Deborah13]

This in 1John 4:2 is saying that only those who can say that Jesus came in Their flesh, meaning they can receive the Word to indwell them, able to hear the Voice or Word of God to be transformed into his image(attributes).
Did you know that even the demons seen Jesus in the flesh and recognized him? Them believing that he came in the carnal flesh, didn’t save them?

Would you please share with me in which MSS or transliteration you have found this "their" flesh?
Or are you saying that this interpretation is something God showed you or you have determined for yourself by righting dividing the word of truth?

 

[elijah23]

The Lord saves us when we turn to him, but he wants us to repent of our sin so he doesn't have to save us over and over again.

 

[WIP]

Please remember to follow the guidelines found in the sticky at the top of the forum.

 

[By Grace]

I am confused where things stand in this thread, at present.
According to the OP, the poster wants to discuss several things:

The Rapture (if indeed there will be a Rapture as the Dispensationalists believe).
The theology of grace vs. works, aka Calvinism vs Arminianism
The doctrine of two different Resurrections of the dead in Christ (another Dispensational distinctive)
​

From those, there was a discussion of the " descensus ad inferos” Christ's descent into the hell as mentioned in the Apostle's Creed, and 1 Peter 3:19-20.

Then there is the issue of Reformed Eschatology vs. Dispensational eschatology. Both of these Bible-believing groups believe in the immanence of the return of Jesus Christ (at any time) but the Dispensationalists created a "map for Jesus to follow" and they get pretty upset if anyone disagrees with their carefully and elaborately-constructed "road map for Jesus"

So mods, where do we stand in this thread? Are we able to discuss all of those, or just one?

Thanks for the clarification

 

[Obadiah]

I am confused where things stand in this thread, at present.
According to the OP, the poster wants to discuss several things:

The Rapture (if indeed there will be a Rapture as the Dispensationalists believe).
The theology of grace vs. works, aka Calvinism vs Arminianism
The doctrine of two different Resurrections of the dead in Christ (another Dispensational distinctive)
​

From those, there was a discussion of the " descensus ad inferos” Christ's descent into the hell as mentioned in the Apostle's Creed, and 1 Peter 3:19-20.

Then there is the issue of Reformed Eschatology vs. Dispensational eschatology. Both of these Bible-believing groups believe in the immanence of the return of Jesus Christ (at any time) but the Dispensationalists created a "map for Jesus to follow" and they get pretty upset if anyone disagrees with their carefully and elaborately-constructed "road map for Jesus"

So mods, where do we stand in this thread? Are we able to discuss all of those, or just one?

Thanks for the clarification

Since the Original poster of this thread is no longer with us he will not be able to answer your questions. But I hope everyone will take notice that this is one of the reasons we developed guidelines for this forum. Several people have protested having to follow the rules, however had the Original Poster followed the rules we wouldn't have this confusion now.

The first of the guidelines for this forum states: "Original posts should reference specific scripture and what it is the member wants to say or ask about that scripture. The OP in this case has tried to cover too many subjects to be able to have a proper debate on them. This only causes confusion. At this point I really only see two choices. I think we could try our best to stay as close to the Original Post as possible and stay within the rest of the guidelines, or we could just close the thread. In the future I will try to monitor OPs more closely and limit them to what our guidelines state they should be in order to prevent confusion.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

In general it is unproductive to support the idea of a divided Body of Christ. It seems a surrender to vanity where one part of Jesus' Body discounts another as not worthy of salvation; reverting to a theology not of Grace, but works. It is also ironic because part of Jesus' work was to collect those who would surrender to Grace into His Body, divided from those satisfied in their works. Any understanding of a parable which promotes a divided Body of Christ needs to be reexamined.

That is spot on.

So what would be the purpose of promoting such an agenda? What is the fruit of such an agenda?

Yes, we know that faith without works is dead. But, as the above poster pointed out, it’s the promotion of that “division” thing that is suspect.

For one, the pre-tribulation “rapture” theory promotes such a division.

According to the OP, the poster wants to discuss several things:

The Rapture (if indeed there will be a Rapture as the Dispensationalists believe).
The theology of grace vs. works, aka Calvinism vs Arminianism
The doctrine of two different Resurrections of the dead in Christ (another Dispensational distinctive)

It seems the doctrine of dispensationalism, with its marketing vehicle (i.e. the pre-tribulation "rapture" theory), is at the center of what the OP would build on.

If you want the answer to the "rapture" question, simply study the RESURRECTION.

The rapture doctrine requires students of the scriptures to approach each relevant verse with certain preconceived notions about prophecy. If you simply read the various prophetic verses about the return of Christ, the Bible clearly teaches that believers will be “gathered” at the second coming -- not some secret, invisible return that precedes his BIG second coming at the end of the tribulation. The problem isn’t in our understanding of the rapture, because the rapture as routinely taught today doesn’t even exist; the difficulty is in our understanding of the resurrection.

In John chapter five, Jesus tells us how God The Father has committed the power of resurrection to him. Jesus says “He that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life...for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” (John 6:24, 28, 29) According to these passages, apparently there are two resurrections: one for those “that have done good,” and a resurrection for those “that have done evil.”

In one of the parallel accounts, a verse in Luke has Christ himself saying that the believer shall “be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.” (Luke 14:14) Another proof text of this dual aspect of the resurrection is found in the book of Acts when the Apostle Paul was brought before the Roman governor Felix and charged with heresy by the Jews.

Paul stated that he believes, as the Jews did, “that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.” (Ezekiel 33:8, 4) A further example of this understanding of two resurrections is found in the Old Testament, when the prophet Daniel was instructed by the archangel Michael concerning the tribulation and the resurrection. In that instance, Michael said that in the time of the end, “many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” (Daniel 12:2)

Back in the New Testament book of Revelation, we find a reference to “the first resurrection.” (Rev. 20:5) This first resurrection clearly relates to believers in Jesus, for the text states that they “lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” (Rev. 20:4)

In the same chapter, John (the writer of Revelation) says “the rest of the dead live not again until the thousand years were finished.” (Rev. 20:5) Later in the chapter John says, “when the thousand years are expired...I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God...and the dead were judged...” (Rev. 20:7, 12) These verses plainly state that there are two resurrections -- one for believers and one for unbelievers.

The Revelation passages further clarify that these two resurrections are separated by one thousand years; this being the period we commonly call the millennium during which the resurrected believers shall “reign with him a thousand years.” (Rev. 20:6)

 

[By Grace]

It seems the doctrine of dispensationalism, with its marketing vehicle (i.e. the pre-tribulation "rapture" theory), is at the center of what the OP would build on.

If you want the answer to the "rapture" question, simply study the RESURRECTION.

The rapture doctrine requires students of the scriptures to approach each relevant verse with certain preconceived notions about prophecy. If you simply read the various prophetic verses about the return of Christ, the Bible clearly teaches that believers will be “gathered” at the second coming -- not some secret, invisible return that precedes his BIG second coming at the end of the tribulation. The problem isn’t in our understanding of the rapture, because the rapture as routinely taught today doesn’t even exist; the difficulty is in our understanding of the resurrection.

I notice that you provided no Scripture for that construction, and therein lies the Achilles Heel of those supporting the "Rapture construction" IMO.

Paul stated that he believes, as the Jews did, “that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.” (Ezekiel 33:8, 4) A further example of this understanding of two resurrections is found in the Old Testament, when the prophet Daniel was instructed by the archangel Michael concerning the tribulation and the resurrection. In that instance, Michael said that in the time of the end, “many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” (Daniel 12:2)
(Rev. 20:4)

INDEED !
In order to support one thing in the theory, its supporters need to "stretch things" sometimes. It is a well-intentioned stretching because the supporters stress the plenary inspiration of Scripture--which I do also. But I also believe that this sort of construction creates an unintentional arrogance that essentially says "I know when Jesus returns, and you don't."

Back in the New Testament book of Revelation, we find a reference to “the first resurrection.” (Rev. 20:5) This first resurrection clearly relates to believers in Jesus, for the text states that they “lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”

In the same chapter, John (the writer of Revelation) says “the rest of the dead live not again until the thousand years were finished.” (Rev. 20:5) Later in the chapter John says, “when the thousand years are expired...I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God...and the dead were judged...” (Rev. 20:7, 12) These verses plainly state that there are two resurrections -- one for believers and one for unbelievers.

The Revelation passages further clarify that these two resurrections are separated by one thousand years; this being the period we commonly call the millennium during which the resurrected believers shall “reign with him a thousand years.” (Rev. 20:6)

Due to a negative experience while on a live TV feed, I am somewhat jaded. The speaker confidently stated that he knew that Jesus would return during the Jewish holy days of 1988, and because I was deemed as "host" I could not interrupt his message.

I say that to make it clear that because I dislike the Rapture theory, it does not mean that as a result, I deny the immanence of the return of Jesus; it is so close, ti can come before the end of this sentence. Thus I believe that listening for the trumpets (a sure event to come) is more important than looking for the ever-changing signs, or making the establishment of Israel in 1947 (a political event) the cornerstone of a theory of adding and subtracting random numbers to get a date.[/QUOTE]

 

[gr8grace3]

I notice that you provided no Scripture for that construction, and therein lies the Achilles Heel of those supporting the "Rapture construction" IMO.



INDEED !
In order to support one thing in the theory, its supporters need to "stretch things" sometimes. It is a well-intentioned stretching because the supporters stress the plenary inspiration of Scripture--which I do also. But I also believe that this sort of construction creates an unintentional arrogance that essentially says "I know when Jesus returns, and you don't."



Due to a negative experience while on a live TV feed, I am somewhat jaded. The speaker confidently stated that he knew that Jesus would return during the Jewish holy days of 1988, and because I was deemed as "host" I could not interrupt his message.

I say that to make it clear that because I dislike the Rapture theory, it does not mean that as a result, I deny the immanence of the return of Jesus; it is so close, ti can come before the end of this sentence. Thus I believe that listening for the trumpets (a sure event to come) is more important than looking for the ever-changing signs, or making the establishment of Israel in 1947 (a political event) the cornerstone of a theory of adding and subtracting random numbers to get a date.

[/QUOTE]
Hello By Grace,

At this point in my walk, I believe in the pre-trib rapture and I would never put a date on it. 1947 plays no part in my pre-trib belief.

Do you believe that there is a tribulation? And believers are going to go through it? From your comment above it seems that you may believe we are already in the tribulation?

How would you place this verse and the surrounding context into your theology?

2 Thess. 2:3~~New American Standard Bible
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

 

[th1b.taylor]

Luke 21:34-36 King James Version (KJV)
34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.

35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.

36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

If ALL Christians were going to take part in this great escape, Why would Jesus give such a stern warning? Surely, Jesus knows that a non-Christian cannot be in an attitude of constant prayer. Surely, non-Christians are not expected to be looking for that day and watching of signs of his Return.

He is refusing to use the logic of Hermeneutics and let the scripture tell him the meaning here. Today, and I do not think it unreasonable to say, and then there were the pretenders. Recall, please, when Jesus taught hard subjects such as Holy Communion folks walked smooth away from Him. They, just as better than 90% of the Church are there only for the benefits. Thus the warning that when read by me says, "Walk closely, always paying attention." This "caution" is for even the faithful but has naught to do with who will be raptured other than Saved Men and women. Today, as then, there are two major divisions of the Saved. (Matthew 22:1-14) These are the guests and the Bride.

Rev. 3:10 says, "Because thou has kept the word of my patience, I ALSO WILL KEEP THEE FROM THE HOUR OF TEMPTATION, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." The implication of this verse is obvious: If the end-time Christian does NOT stay close to the Lord and endure to the end, HE WILL NOT BE KEPT FROM THE TRIBULATION HOUR!

End-time Christian = no such animal. When you say Christian you have nailed it but End-time Christians is an imaginary group with no extension into our Time/Space Continuum. The division of the two groups of the Faithful (True Christians) is the closeness of their personal walk with God during their lives here in the Time/Space Continuum created by God for our testing and building up.

The parable of ten virgins. He says the foolish virgins weren't any un-believers and if they were then they wouldn't have been called virgins in the first place. Foolish virgins were left behind because they didn't have oil with them and that oil is being led by the Holy Spirit which makes a person to have intimate personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

This is another parable defining true and imaginary Christians. But the oil is the Holy Spirit? No, no. If one has the Holy Spirit indwelling them, they do not loose it, this is not the time period before the God/Man walked among and taught us. The virgins, rather, are those that heard the Word of Truth but did not hide it in their hearts.

There are, indeed, other Life Applications I once knew but the oil cannot, in this case represent the Spirit of God.

Finally he says those who accept Jesus Christ by Grace through faith theory, will surely be saved but they will be left behind because they didn't have any personal relationship with Jesus Christ

And where in the world did he get that lie from world did he find this lie?

 

[By Grace]

Do you believe that there is a tribulation? And believers are going to go through it? From your comment above it seems that you may believe we are already in the tribulation?,

What you are asking is I believe in the Amillennial position? While it has some merits, I do not wholly believe it. My personal opinion is that while the return of Jesus will be pre-millennial, it will be mid tribulational. My reason for that is because I believe the 10 Plagues of Egypt mentioned in Deuteronomy COULD be a pattern (think of type and antitype) for the last days. Just as the Israelites did not have any of the plagues come upon them, and all of them were acts of the severe mercy of God to Pharaoh to turn his heart and to let God's people flee Egypt, so also do I believe that will happen to God's children; they will see the Tribulation upon others, but God will protect His own.

How would you place this verse and the surrounding context into your theology?
2 Thess. 2:3~~New American Standard Bible
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
.​

It fits very well into what I stated above But as I said previously, I do not believe that it will happen in the manner that the Dispensationalists describe that it will. The context of the passage is very important because it is meant as a comfort to the Christians of Thessalonia but not as a blueprint for Dispensationalists. And that is an important distinction. And I believe that is demonstrated by verse 12, which ends one clear section, and begins another because Paul starts a new "paragraph" thus: 13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord,

The shift is from those who are deceived and unrighteous (vs 7 through 12) to the brothers and sisters in Thessalonia, whom Paul praises.

Of course, I do not expect that what I posted will change your mind, nor do I expect it to do that. But what I do suspect is that you may be somewhat of a fence-sitter in eschatology. If that is the case, I do recommend that you read this book:
Contemporary Options In Eschatology: A Study Of The Millennium by Millard J. Erickson. You can find it http://www.amazon.ca/Contemporary-Options-Eschatology-Study-Millennium/dp/0801034426 or http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1749698.Contemporary_Options_In_Eschatology or if you do a web search, as a PDF.

The reason why I recommend it is that Professor Erickson carefully examines all the different positions, in what I believe is an unbiased manner, and admits his own preference at the end. The Canadian Amazon is the cheapest @ $2.77 ca and that is less in USD.

Since this is not an essential matter in the church, and because God has deliberately left some of the details of the Second Coming of Jesus ambiguous, I believe that it is important to understand that ambiguity, and incorporate that into our eschatology framework. What REALLY drives me nuts about the Dispensationalists is that they believe that due to their literal interpretation of Scripture, they believe that they are 100% correct. That attitude of false sureness reeks like garlic breath to me because in their date setting, and patterns of prophetic framework, they fail to realize that they have been 100% WRONG, so far.

Hope this helps

 

[gr8grace3]

What you are asking is I believe in the Amillennial position? While it has some merits, I do not wholly believe it. My personal opinion is that while the return of Jesus will be pre-millennial, it will be mid tribulational. My reason for that is because I believe the 10 Plagues of Egypt mentioned in Deuteronomy COULD be a pattern (think of type and antitype) for the last days. Just as the Israelites did not have any of the plagues come upon them, and all of them were acts of the severe mercy of God to Pharaoh to turn his heart and to let God's people flee Egypt, so also do I believe that will happen to God's children; they will see the Tribulation upon others, but God will protect His own.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
.​

It fits very well into what I stated above But as I said previously, I do not believe that it will happen in the manner that the Dispensationalists describe that it will. The context of the passage is very important because it is meant as a comfort to the Christians of Thessalonia but not as a blueprint for Dispensationalists. And that is an important distinction. And I believe that is demonstrated by verse 12, which ends one clear section, and begins another because Paul starts a new "paragraph" thus: 13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord,

The shift is from those who are deceived and unrighteous (vs 7 through 12) to the brothers and sisters in Thessalonia, whom Paul praises.

Of course, I do not expect that what I posted will change your mind, nor do I expect it to do that. But what I do suspect is that you may be somewhat of a fence-sitter in eschatology. If that is the case, I do recommend that you read this book:
Contemporary Options In Eschatology: A Study Of The Millennium by Millard J. Erickson. You can find it http://www.amazon.ca/Contemporary-Options-Eschatology-Study-Millennium/dp/0801034426 or http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1749698.Contemporary_Options_In_Eschatology or if you do a web search, as a PDF.

The reason why I recommend it is that Professor Erickson carefully examines all the different positions, in what I believe is an unbiased manner, and admits his own preference at the end. The Canadian Amazon is the cheapest @ $2.77 ca and that is less in USD.

Since this is not an essential matter in the church, and because God has deliberately left some of the details of the Second Coming of Jesus ambiguous, I believe that it is important to understand that ambiguity, and incorporate that into our eschatology framework. What REALLY drives me nuts about the Dispensationalists is that they believe that due to their literal interpretation of Scripture, they believe that they are 100% correct. That attitude of false sureness reeks like garlic breath to me because in their date setting, and patterns of prophetic framework, they fail to realize that they have been 100% WRONG, so far.

Hope this helps

Thank you for your time and explanation By Grace.

 

[By Grace]

As long as we ALL recognized three important facts about eschatology:

1) ALMOST EVERYTHING we say about the Second Coming is well-intentioned speculation
2) We ALL come from different theological perspectives
3) No particular view is a test of one's salvation, or "orthodoxy".​

we can agree to disagree or support the position of another Christian in a Christ-like manner. The main thing is that we all are looking forward to that glorious event. I do think it is a good thing to discuss the future, and as long as we remain in those parameters as well as the tos here, we will be fine.