Unholy Cow, folks. I sure recon I outta check my writing before sending it? And the spelling. Touche'.
I think ya'll missed my points. I didn't intend for all I said to be FACTS, oh contrare.
We ex-wayers DID learn something useful, didn't we? No, it is not good that there are Organizations out there that PROFIT from Love starved people who want to be loved and learn about God. There WAS and perhaps still IS alot of wrong things, and we can say this about OTHER GROUPS out there, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the like. The list goes on and on. So many run people's lives and use fear tactics to Mind Control them into submission.
They are all guilty of much, the way is guilty as well, BUT I rather focus on the Positive things and move on with my life and stay focused on God and his unconditional love.
Certainly I did not express properly what my heart intended.
The world is full of schism, conflict, tourmoil, negativity. We would all do well to practice what we preach and not try to nick pick at things others say and try to CORRECT everyone. Those people who battle using God's word, are perhaps bitter inside and I say to that, get your hearts right with your God. Leave anger and bitterness where it belongs in the pit of hell. Life is too short to fight.
We can't change what all those groups are doing. The Bible tells us to speak to those who Ask us a reason of the hope that is in us, and to do it with meekness and love. Some of these posts are not loving at all.
Some of you folks just want to point a finger and accuse others, right or wrong, doesn't matter. Just get your venom out, does it make you feel better? Sorry if I do not believe in cutting and pasting all those statements I don't like that ya'll say. Will not lower myself to foolish standards. I just want to see others get past - the past.
For whatever reasons God led us all in different directions since the Way. I was forced out in a bad marriage, and chose not to return cause I was threatened my daughter would be taken away from me. Now I know it was the best thing for me, not to return.
I miss so many things tho. The Rock of Ages, in that it was FUN, musically inspiring, camping with other lovely folks, and I had FRIENDS abundantly. The pros outweigh the cons. It was the best thing for my life at the time. No one brain washed me, I was there on my own free will. Were any of ya'll forced there against your will?
I still stand on my previous statement that they are doing good things IF they are teaching Christ and Salvation. God will work in a person once they get started with their walk with God. That's one thing about God. Who can judge others, we do not have the right. What works for one person may not for another.
I am PRO - FREEDOM OF WILL.
My Free Will was Never in Jeopardy.
I am in control of ME and my mind. Anyone out there who is not in control? We can only be accountable to God for our own actions, not the actions of another. God will hold them accountable. I want to leave the judgement to God. My job is to be a good example. yeah, guarding the mystery. I feel it means to Love Unconditionally. To Love God with all our hearts, souls and mind. To love our neighbor as ourselves. Love the key.
Please don't get caught in the trees, you'll miss the beauty of the forrest. Forgive me for not being a Scholar or a College Educated Word-smith. I'm a simple minded Saint and of the Household of God. I claim no religion... I'm just doing the best I can with what I have.
God Bless you all. Don't worry about offending me with your fancy words of reproach or correction. I'll read through it and take the insults with a grain of sand. At least I know the position I hold in God's eyes.
This sure is an interesting place. Lots of bitterness, and many people trying to one-up someone else in the knowledge department.
Love does not behave itself like this. Knowledge gets puffed up. I can tell there are lots of puffy folks out there who want to BE RIGHT, and they forget what is all so important. Blessings to you and yours.
Thanks for replies such as they are. Great ones and Puffy ones.
I wish to CORRECT err Clarify my first POST. The Facts should of been listed with 1, 2 3. They all started with "We Learned", there should of only been Three. The rest was a general opinionated letter, expressing my feelings, not what I felt were FACTS.
We Did Learn Lots of Things. Useful stuff. Like the Power of positive thinking. God n Christ n You. Its a matter of what we do with what we learned and that we should keep on learning. We got keys and principles and pretty good education on how to study the bible., right? The rest is up to us. What we do with what we get, its our Free Will Choices.
Anyway, One day all this will seem so insignificant? I am looking forward to the Return of Christ.
Oh, in regard to the person who said I seem sincere. Lots of people do. Sincerity is no guarantee for Truth, tho.
I am a Truth Seeker, constantly striving to learn new stuff. I know there are answers out there to tons of questions I have. It didn't end for me with the Way. I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church, then my father forced us to study with his Cult, the JWs, those folks run peoples lives and 'fear motivate'. I left that, knowing full well JC was NOT Michael the Archangel. Since the Way I've read lots of Biblical Scholar's works to see if there is More to God and his word than I learned in 'preschool'. The Way being a good starting point for me, anyhow. Yeah my opinion. Sorry for those who have deep rooted regrets and they can't get past the pain and bitterness to see the positives in every experience they have in life. We weren't promised a thornless garden?
God is Not to Blame. Satan is the culpret. I blame him more than I do humankind of which I'm one. Folks like John Lynn, I choose to love him, and feel God loves him too. My decision.
I'd like however to think differently, but ya'll make good sense. There are people in this world who LOOK UP TO LEADERS for their answers and to Give them direction, even to THINK FOR THEM. I was not one, however.
I was one of the few rebellious Believers. I always felt I ought to walk with GOD, not Wierwille. Until I met Greaspots, I had no earthly idea of the horrific stunts that VPW and other Leaders were guilty of.
I invested my time differently, not to be a FOLLOWER of the WAY, but a Learner With.
I apologize if my First Post on here ever sounded FOOLISH and overlooked the logical reasons why you folks are speaking outloud about what happened.
I find one thing odd, I recall when the leader of the Assembly of Gods sinned, they scolded him and he publically confessed and repented, and so he is now back in the Faith's good graces. I only knew of one thing I didn't approve that VPW did, and that was SMOKE.
I had NO IDEA he felt that Grace was a license for him to SIN, and do whatever he pleased at the expense of others. That saddens me.
But I never looked up to him or worshiped him in anyway. Same with Rev. Lynn. I respect what he taught. It saddens me that many people didn't live what they taught, or used the Bible to manipulate others. It didn't happen to me or anyone I knew so I am sorry.
I had NO IDEA... I was hoping that Love could heal all wounds. I have a few friends still caught up in the Way, and I can't get them to Greasespots, they are being told NOT to look at that letter or listen to others who left. Fear Motivation --- NEVER GOOD. They ought to get a clue as to how they have the right to Think for Themselves. I always took a stand for my freedome of thought, I had no idea how easy it was for others to be manipulated. Geeze.
Thanks for the awakening.... I'll try not to be SO Nieve in the future.
Jeanette - I don't have any problems with you, or the decisions you've come to, or your right to express them here at GreaseSpot. This is a place for all of us to come to grips with the realities of our involvements with the Way International. The things we say here seem to disagree at times, because each one of us had a different involvement.
Discussions of these differences can help us come to a more accurate understanding of what happened to us, and they can help us make informed decisions about where we want to go from here.
There IS a crying need for God's people to recognize their relatedness, not just among ex-Wayfers, but among all Christians (even our relatedness with Trinitarian brethren).
I value your viewpoint and your posts.
One of the reasons I invested so much of my life into Wierwille's religious empire was because I thought he was teaching me the truth. When I actually started reading the Bible without PFAL filters, I realized Wierwille had trapped me in lies, and took advantage of my enthusiasm to help him trap other people in the same lies.
We've all come some distance since those days. At one time, John Lynn and CES helped me do that. However, bless their hearts, they stopped moving forward, and they are content to sit in some of Wierwille's old lies.
To sit and be quiet about CES' errors, especially when CES operatives are aggressively recruiting at GreaseSpot Cafe, would be just as wrong for me as to be silent about the errors of PFAL.
Raf, oldies and I love each other dearly. We've been through a heck of a lot of arguments together, sometimes backing each other up, sometimes fighting in a way that must seem tooth and nail to outsiders. But that's how we learn from each other. We aren't enemies, and I hope you will see that as you become better acquainted with us.
Do you need to be able to refute one of us on some obscure point of hermaneutics in order for your viewpoint to be valid? No. And again I write, No.
Love,
Steve
P.S. - I have an aunt whose name is Jeannette. She likes to tell us all her problems are "Jeannettic" :-)
Unholy Cow, folks. I sure recon I outta check my writing before sending it? And the spelling. Touche'.
Try hitting your enter key every once in awhile to make paragraphs. One line after another with no spaces between makes things difficult to read. Many people will not even read such posts.
quote:I think ya'll missed my points. I didn't intend for all I said to be FACTS, oh contrare.
Fair Enough - only reading what you wrote - how you wrote it.
quote:...BUT I rather focus on the Positive things and move on with my life and stay focused on God and his unconditional love. Certainly I did not express properly what my heart intended.
Fine, but in focusing on the positive one does necessarily have to ignore or gloss over the negatives and abuses.
quote:The world is full of schism, conflict, tourmoil, negativity. We would all do well to practice what we preach and not try to nick pick at things others say and try to CORRECT everyone.
True. But is anyone here at GS trying to CORRECT "everyone"? I dont think so. However, it does appear that YOU have taking it upon yourself to CORRECT us here at GS with your charges of "bitterness" and "anger" and being "unloving". What's up with that?
quote:Some of you folks just want to point a finger and accuse others, right or wrong, doesn't matter. Just get your venom out, does it make you feel better? Sorry if I do not believe in cutting and pasting all those statements I don't like that ya'll say. Will not lower myself to foolish standards. I just want to see others get past - the past.
Are you not "pointing a finger" yourself when you make such accusations? Maybe you should takes a little of your own advice - eh?
quote:For whatever reasons God led us all in different directions since the Way. I was forced out in a bad marriage, and chose not to return cause I was threatened my daughter would be taken away from me. Now I know it was the best thing for me, not to return.
A wise choice I think.
quote:I miss so many things tho. The Rock of Ages, in that it was FUN, musically inspiring, camping with other lovely folks, and I had FRIENDS abundantly. The pros outweigh the cons. It was the best thing for my life at the time. No one brain washed me, I was there on my own free will. Were any of ya'll forced there against your will?
The TWI you miss does not exist. But even back then the abuses were rampant, taking place behind closed doors. I left early (82) when I saw the abuses beginning - when leaders began meddling and demanding obescience. But later folks were indeed "forced" to stay with threats like "God won't protect you if you leave" or you will be a Greasespot by midnight" No, no one was physically forced to stay, TWI's method was even more hineous than that. They threatened folks with loss of God's love and protection, loss of family and friends and even loss of life.
quote:I still stand on my previous statement that they are doing good things IF they are teaching Christ and Salvation. God will work in a person once they get started with their walk with God.
Ok, So they teach Christ (but him being "absent" in practice) and they teach salvation also (their version of it ....) But then ... they set theselves up as God's only true "Household" and threaten anyone that leaves with the things I mentioned above. This is just the tip of the iceberg .... Go ahead and stand by your statement - but I think an objective look at the scriptures will show that their whole method of operation is ungodly and self-serving if not evil.
quote:That's one thing about God. Who can judge others, we do not have the right. What works for one person may not for another.
I don't think that bondage to a corrupt corporation pretending to be God's True Household works for anyone - even if they say and believe that it does.
quote:I am PRO - FREEDOM OF WILL.
My Free Will was Never in Jeopardy.
I am in control of ME and my mind. Anyone out there who is not in control? We can only be accountable to God for our own actions, not the actions of another. God will hold them accountable. I want to leave the judgement to God.
Don't mistake the exposing of TWI's ungodliness and abuses with "judgement" that is reserved for God ( How many time have I heard that one?) Doesn't the scripture say to judge all things? Aren't were warned about false teachers and those who would put us under bondage. To point out such things is not taking on the "judgment" that is reserved for God - it is doing what we are supposed to do.
quote:Love [is] the key.
Please don't get caught in the trees, you'll miss the beauty of the forrest.
I agree, but in seeing the beauty of the forest, let's not be so naive as to think there no thorns and thistles.
quote:Don't worry about offending me with your fancy words of reproach or correction. I'll read through it and take the insults with a grain of sand. At least I know the position I hold in God's eyes.
Well, I see that you weren't worried with your own words of "reproach and correction" aimed at the "angry", "bitter" and "unloving" folks here at GS. - So I think it only fair that you not be offended by the "insults" that you percive may come your way. (Has anyone insulted you really?) As for me, I am only trying get you to see things from a little more balanced prospective - but if you perceive that as "reproach" or "insult" then sorry - you'll just have to deal with it.
Stick around and maybe you can learn a thing or two here. Seems like you have a lot of preconcieved ideas about us.
Raf - Let me clue you in to a little trick spiritual quacks use when they want to read foreign meanings into the Bible (eisegesis, as opposed to exegesis).
First, settle on a word or phrase that sounds plausibly biblical, but can't be found in any concordance. Then, build all your arguments around that word or phrase.
That way, no one can inconveniently find and point out a use of that word or phrase in the Bible that contradicts your pet error.
For instance, is "the new birth" part of Wierwille's Mystery? According to the PFAL book, the new birth first became available on the day of Pentecost. Elsewhere in PFAL we learn that the events of Pentecost had been kept absolutely secret, since they were part of the "administration" of the "mystery".
What then are we to make of Jesus' discourse with Nicodemus in John 3? Discussing things that sound an awful lot like "the new birth", Jesus asked "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?"
Jesus expected every master of Israel to know about "the new birth"!?! How could it be part of the "administration" of the "mystery"?
But can we say, "The Bible says Jesus expected the leaders of Israel to know about the new birth well before the day of Pentecost." No, we cannot, because the phrase "the new birth" doesn't occur anywhere in the Bible.
Let's look at the word "rapture". Can we learn anything about "the rapture" by looking in a concordance? No, we can't. The word doesn't appear in the concordance.
So we look in Bullinger's and find that the word translated "caught" in I Thessalonians 4:17 comes from the Greek word "harpazo".
We look up the uses of "harpazo" and its cognates to discover its semantic range. Does this process tell us anything about the "rapture"? No, because "rapture" doesn't come directly from the Greek word "harpazo". It comes from the Latin word "rapere", which has a semantic range that differs from the semantic range of "harpazo".
So, what biblical information do we have, apart from the bald declarations of Darby, Bullinger and Wierwille, regarding the nature of "the rapture"? None, whatsoever.
(By the way, The use of "harpazo" in I Thessalonians 4:17 is not participial. There is a good noun cognate of "harpazo". It's the word "harpage". If Paul meant to write about "the rapture", why didn't he use the word "harpage"? Hmmmm... maybe he didn't intend to write about "the rapture"... maybe he had a reason for that.)
You wrote, "Because the 19th century neologism is equally accurate , and cannot be confused with the various other incidents of 'gathering together' mentioned in scripture."
What evidence can you cite, Raf, other than the unsupported words of Darby, that the resurrection and gathering described in I Thesssalonians 4:13-18 is anything other than the resurrection and gathering promised in Ezekiel 37 and described at various other places in the New Testament?
You're making assumptions about my argument that are incorrect.
Let's back up a bit and make this a bit more clear:
You said "Rapture is an unbiblical word" (I paraphrase).
I said, "Rapture comes from the Latin, not the Greek."
You counter that we can't get the word "rapture" from the Greek, which is... exactly what I said. The Greek word you cite is translated "caught up." That Latin word I cited is translated "caught up" in the exact same verse. All I am saying is that the word "rapture," because of this one simple truth, is Biblical, unless you are going to argue that we can't use words with Latin origins in this discussion, which is your prerogative but I would respectfully disagree.
NOW, based on what I wrote, you don't need to change a thing about your theology or eschatology. I limited my argument to ONE aspect of your earlier post: whether the word "rapture" is Biblical. Even if you don't agree with my conclusion, can you at least agree that I have a solid argument?
Some other things you note (which I think are strong): Jesus expressed surprise that Nicodemus did not know what he meant by "born again." Jesus did not use the words "new birth." The Bible does not use those words. Yet many Christians recognize the concept as scriptural. Do you? (Maybe you don't: Vince Finnegan now teaches that to be born again is a reference to the resurrection, not to some spiritual experience we have while on this earth). If that's the case, then I used a poor example in making my argument that unbiblical words can be used to describe Biblical concepts (ie, even if "rapture" IS an unbiblical word, that doesn't mean it's an unbiblical concept. If "new birth" is a poor example of this, then certainly "advent" and "ascension" are good examples. Neither word is in scripture, not even in your concordance).
Speaking of which:
quote:Let's look at the word "rapture". Can we learn anything about "the rapture" by looking in a concordance? No we can't. The word doesn't appear in the concordance.
This is strawman, Steve, and you're a better debater than this. I never said you could find "rapture" in a concordance... from the Greek. HOWEVER, if you had a concordance from the Vulgate, do you think you might be able to find some information on the Latin word in question? Hmm?
You say the Latin word has a different semantic range than the Greek word. I'm unfamiliar with the term "semantic range," but I assume from context you mean that they don't correspond directly in meaning, denotation and connotation. I respect that, if it's what you're saying, but it's extraneous to my argument (which, again, is SOLELY that "rapture" is not an unbiblical word).
quote:If Paul meant to write about "the rapture", why didn't he use the word "harpage"? Hmmmm... maybe he didn't intend to write about "the rapture"... maybe he had a reason for that.
This is like saying "if Peter wanted to say 'repent and undergo baptism,' he would have said so, but instead he said 'repent and be baptized.'" You're drawing a distinction where none exists.
quote:So, what biblical information do we have, apart from the bald declarations of Darby, Bullinger and Wierwille, regarding the nature of "the rapture". None, whatsoever.
You wrote, "Because the 19th century neologism is equally accurate , and cannot be confused with the various other incidents of 'gathering together' mentioned in scripture."
What evidence can you cite, Raf, other than the unsupported words of Darby, that the resurrection and gathering described in I Thesssalonians 4:13-18 is anything other than the resurrection and gathering promised in Ezekiel 37 and described at various other places in the New Testament?
Steve, can you find one post where I even MENTIONED Darby, much less cited him as a reliable source? One? Come on, one? (Okay, maybe there's one, but I don't remember it).
And here's the whopper, the one where you misread me the worst:
I said that the "rapture" aka "caught away" of I Thessalonians 4 "cannot be confused with the various other incidents of 'gathering together' mentioned in scripture."
YOU changed that to imply that I said "the resurrection and gathering described in I Thesssalonians 4:13-18 is [something] other than the resurrection and gathering promised in Ezekiel 37 and described at various other places in the New Testament?"
Problem: that's not what I said.
Acts 4:26 states (quoting Psalm 2),
"The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ."
Is this the gathering together of I Thessalonians 4?
No. So when you use the words "gathering together" to describe I Thessalonians 4, is there a possibility that someone might not understand what you mean? Whereas, if you use the term word "the rapture," does ANYONE doubt that you're talking about I Thessalonians 4?
Limit my argument to this: Rapture is a Biblical word. According to you, Steve (and you make a compelling case), what Wierwille, CES and others teach about The Rapture is based on a host of misunderstandings and misinterpretations, and CES would be better off abandoning that mindset and going strictly by what the Bible teaches. The "Rapture" of I Thessalonians 4 IS the same thing (again, this is your argument) as the resurrection and gathering promised in Ezekiel 37 and described at various other places in the New Testament.
I'll even try to make this a little easier, Steve: Before responding to my post, please note the following...
Raf is NOT saying that The Rapture is a pretribulation event.
Raf is NOT defending dispensationalism.
Raf is NOT saying that the "Church" is a separate and distinct entity from Israel.
Raf is NOT saying that I Thessalonians 7 and Ezekial 37 are describing different events.
ALL RAF IS SAYING, IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
All Raf is saying is that the word "rapture" is derived from the Latin Vulgate's form of the words "caught away," and is thus "Biblical," regardless of how it has been interpreted or misinterpreted by dispensationalists, covenant theologists, atheists, agnostics, rastafarians, and Democrats.
Raf - I realize you are stating other peoples positions, and not necessarily arguing FOR those things. For instance, "Because the 19th century neologism is equally accurate, and cannot be confused with the various other incidents of 'gathering together' mentioned in scripture" is more likely CES' answer to the question "why use 'rapture'?"
The simple truth is, if we want to know what's actually written in the Bible, the word "rapture" is NOT "equally accurate". Darby swiped it from the Irvingites in order to ARTIFICIALLY distinguish the resurrection and gathering of I Thessalonians 4 from the resurrection and gathering of Ezekiel 37. If he had not done so, his whole system of dispensations would have failed because it is an error, biblically.
The dispensationalist emperor's new clothes consist of the pretribulation "rapture" of the "Church". The emperor is nekkid, and as long as we stick with Darby's unscriptural language, we go along with the crowd, admiring his wonderful new theology.
CES makes a big deal about how they stand against tradition for the truth. They haven't made the effort to see for themselves, and they've turned unhearing ears to the admonition of many capable councilors, that the "truth" for which they contend is no less a tradition of men than the things they teach against.
I don't have a gripe against you, Rafael. I do have a gripe against CES' devolution from scriptural accuracy.
Raf - I realize you are stating other peoples positions, and not necessarily arguing FOR those things.
Quite the opposite: I am not stating ANYONE's position regarding dispensationalism or any other topic.
quote:For instance, "Because the 19th century neologism is equally accurate, and cannot be confused with the various other incidents of 'gathering together' mentioned in scripture" is more likely CES' answer to the question "why use 'rapture'?"
It's not "more likely CES' answer..." It IS CES' answer.
quote:The simple truth is, if we want to know what's actually written in the Bible, the word "rapture" is NOT "equally accurate".
We're going in circles. I'll be first to cry uncle on this.
quote:Darby swiped it from the Irvingites in order to ARTIFICIALLY distinguish the resurrection and gathering of I Thessalonians 4 from the resurrection and gathering of Ezekiel 37. If he had not done so, his whole system of dispensations would have failed because it is an error, biblically.
That's quite a leap. If Darby had called it "The catching away" instead of the "rapture," he could still come up with exactly the same eschatology using different terms (which Wierwille proved, in your own words, by using a Biblically accurate term but promoting the exact same eschatology).
quote:The dispensationalist emperor's new clothes consist of the pretribulation "rapture" of the "Church". The emperor is nekkid, and as long as we stick with Darby's unscriptural language, we go along with the crowd, admiring his wonderful new theology.
None of which has anything to do with what I've been trying to say, but I've already cried uncle.
quote:CES makes a big deal about how they stand against tradition for the truth. They haven't made the effort to see for themselves, and they've turned unhearing ears to the admonition of many capable councilors, that the "truth" for which they contend is no less a tradition of men than the things they teach against.
See above.
quote:I don't have a gripe against you, Rafael.
Nor I against you. I hope you don;t see it that way.
quote: I do have a gripe against CES' devolution from scriptural accuracy.
I think you are going a bit overboard on "scriptural accuracuy" in regards to what makes a word "biblical."
There are numerous terms and phrases used in Christianity that cannot be found in the Bible - King James or otherwise - yet it seems you are wanting folk to only use terms found in the King James version.
I think it makes little difference what words or phrase are used - as long as the idea or concept is conveyed. "Gathering together" is translated "assembling" in the RSV. Both terms are "biblical". However as I understand it most of Christianity refers to this event as "the rapture." Same concept - same event.
Honestly, it seems to me that since rapture is the most commonly used term for this event, that if you want folks to know what you are talking about, "rapture" would be the most "accurate" way of communicating this concept - for the sake of understanding.
What is important is that the correct idea/concept is conveyed - not that a particular English word is used in the name of being "biblical."
I dont think it is too reasonable to expect all of Christianity conform to your very strict idea of what is "biblical."
CES is hardly unique in their pro-rapture stance, which appears quite common among a variety of fundamentalists and "Bible-believers".
What fascinates me is the fact that some pro-rapturists and scripture-splitters, where elaborating their position , curiously arrive to "Marcionite" expressions without betraying so much a clue or awareness that Marcion even existed. How is this so? Someday I should post points from CES' "20 Reasons to Believe the Rapture" (or some such title) side by side with expressions by Tertullian. It's uncanny.
I don't rule out that such a belief existed in antiquity, especially (as one who subscribes to the theory) the Pauline material first circulated -- and may have even originated --within Marcionite circles, where the expectation of a Good God removing His newly acquired "property" from the realm of the Demiurge - prior to the Just One commencing the "wrath to come" -- would not have been so out of place at all.
Marcion's Good God was even depicted as a "robber" by his critics (perhaps something of a "Robin Hood" by followers), one who swoops down from the heaven into a world not his own to "seize" or plunder the property of the world lord.
Perhaps it's no accident that "rapine" and "rapture" share the same Latin etymological root.
I think there's a lot more research in this subject which remains to be done. I know I've hardly scratched the surface there.
Steve, can I point this out to you in a few different words, maybe you can see my point:
You said: "The simple truth is, if we want to know what's actually written in the Bible, the word "rapture" is NOT "equally accurate". Darby swiped it from the Irvingites in order to ARTIFICIALLY distinguish the resurrection and gathering of I Thessalonians 4 from the resurrection and gathering of Ezekiel 37. If he had not done so, his whole system of dispensations would have failed because it is an error, biblically."
But you also said: "Wierwille always used the biblically correct term for the event, 'the gathering together', even though he misplaced it before the tribulation, and mistakenly restricted it to the "Church" as opposed to the believing remnant of Israel with believing Gentiles grafted in on the same basis, by grace through faith."
Now, can you agree with me that the terminology used does not free one from the probability of error (or accuracy, for that matter). Darby doesn't get away with his eschatology by using the word "rapture," because Wierwille has the exact same eschatology without using the word "rapture." You're giving way too much weight to the significance of this word as it relates to Darby's "error" (assuming you're right and he's wrong here). In doing so, might I suggest you're going too far: insisting that the word itself is not Biblical when its origin is clearly from the Latin Vulgate, which is a Bible. A little too far? A little? Wee bit? Nit?
Does JAL sit around and make a thread and kick back the roller coaster his words and those who respond and he smokes a big ole cigar in the eye of the storm...
Too funny! I was just thinking (see, if fits me) that this has to be a record for a thread where the person starting it does not participate at all. Nice work, if you can get it.
With that kind of reasoning, how can you guys fault Mike for saying PFAL is God-breathed?
***
PFAL has words in it.
Some of them say something or other about something being God-breathed.
Therefore, PFAL is God-breathed.
***
Get a clue people.
Stage magicians make a living by misdirecting peoples' attention. They know that the human eye is attracted to motion. They make a broad sweeping motion with one hand, while working their chicanery through unobtrusive movements of the other.
Wierwille swindled us, folks. Dispensationalism was... not an important... not a major... but a NECESSARY... component of that swindle. Wierwille couldn't have done what he did so well without dispensationalism. And dispensationalism doesn't work without using the unbiblical word "rapture", to distract peoples' attention from what's actually written in the Bible.
Wierwille didn't invent the swindle, and he isn't the only one who has practiced it.
The Irvingites were the first ones to use "rapture" the way we might recognize it today, as the first part of a two-stage appearing. They did so in 1830. Darby lifted it from them and used it to postulate a pre-tribulation "rapture" of the "Church".
Darby's main theme was that the "Church" is completely separate and discontinuous from Israel. No prophecies "addressed to Israel" could be applied to the "Church". Therefore, Darby had to get the "Church" out of here before the tribulation.
"Voila!" Darby exclaims on the lime-lit stage, using his right hand to proudly wave the pretribulation "rapture" of the "Church" over his head.
With his left hand, he surruptitiously pockets our genuinely biblical heritage. He pockets the promise of resurrection and return to the land. He pockets the New Testament promised in Jeremiah 31. He pockets Paul's conception of the Church; as the believing remnant of Israel under the New Testament, with believing Gentiles, as Gentiles, grafted in on the same basis as the remnant of Israel, by grace through faith.
If you really get honest with the logical conclusion of dispensationalism, Darby surruptitiously pockets the cross of Christ.
Scofield found out he could turn a profit by selling Bibles. Ordinarily, that would have been a difficult thing to do, because you can't copyright the good old King Jimmy. However, if you mix your notes in there with the text, you CAN copyright YOUR VERSION of the Bible (that's why we have so many different "study" Bibles today) without having to go to the trouble of making your own translation. Scofield included Darby's swindle among his notes. More "rapture".
Early 20th century Bible believers were having a hard time in the face of 19th century materialism, what with Darwin, Marx, et al. The believers held a series of conferences. Dispensationalists were firebrands at the time. They felt their interpretation was "scientific" enough to stand in the face of modernity. Dispensationalists hijacked the speaking committees of the fundamentalist conferences, and Darby's swindle became identified with fundamentalism.
To question the pre-tribulation "rapture" of the "Church" became tantamount to questioning the authenticity of the Bible itself.
Sure... "rapture" MUST be a biblical word!
It's still that way in many places today.
Wierwille picked up Darby's swindle and gave it his own spin, as he did with just about everything. Gotta be unique, dontcha know. He replaced Darby's "rapture" with the biblical phrase "gathering together", but Wierwille still adhered to Darby's deceptive definitions and principles.
The leaders of CES re-examined some of the things Wierwille taught. They rejected the "law" of believing, and recovered some things about the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
But they are still mesmerized by Darby's stunning performance before the lime-lights. By returning to "rapture", the unbiblical word Darby bandied about so brilliantly, Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser have moved even farther away from noticing what Darby covertly slipped into his pocket.
If you're going to insist on this kind of absurd oversimplification (aka utter misrepresentation) of our arguments, then it's really not worth pursuing.
You tell us to get a clue, yet in a single post you insist tht the word "rapture" is essential to Darby's misrepresentation while simultaneously showing that Wierwille carried on the same misrepresentation without the word rapture.
I say we stop discussing the ascension of Christ or the advent of Christ, since those are clearly not Biblical words.
quote:Does JAL sit around and make a thread and kick back the roller coaster his words and those who respond and he smokes a big ole cigar in the eye of the storm...
I think you nailed it, Song.
Only JL aint anywhere near the eye of the storm.
---
Mere religion has a way of giving titles without merit.
And so a man calls himself a prophet or a preacher or guru some other thing,
and does most of his preaching Spirit in front of people who already agree.
Also, this type stands alone in front of a crowd,
who are only allowed to clap, mostly.
If there is any sort of dialogue about Spirit,
it is isolated or private. Among peers only.
woop dee doo
Sometimes, they'll even go as far as to get a handful of their prophets on a stage,
talking to each other, which is not much, seeing as how they already only agree.
Seekers of pleasure and comfort when it comes to spiritual dialogue.
---
John Lynn,
(and ilk)
Seems to me, that if someone if gonna go around saying they have something Spiritual to offer,
they ought to be skilled enough to sit among people of different religions,
engage in a meaningful dialogue about differences and similarities,
including, fielding questions from the unpicked crowd,
and thus, be able to prove some level of merit as "one of God's special people."
Do it live and uncensored. And without a freakin social safety net.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
28
25
23
19
Popular Days
Jul 30
50
Aug 10
37
Sep 9
30
Jul 31
28
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 28 posts
oldiesman 25 posts
satori001 23 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame 19 posts
Popular Days
Jul 30 2004
50 posts
Aug 10 2004
37 posts
Sep 9 2004
30 posts
Jul 31 2004
28 posts
jetc57
Unholy Cow, folks.
I sure recon I outta check my writing before sending it? And the spelling. Touche'.
I think ya'll missed my points. I didn't intend for all I said to be FACTS, oh contrare.
We ex-wayers DID learn something useful, didn't we? No, it is not good that there are Organizations out there that PROFIT from Love starved people who want to be loved and learn about God. There WAS and perhaps still IS alot of wrong things, and we can say this about OTHER GROUPS out there, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the like. The list goes on and on. So many run people's lives and use fear tactics to Mind Control them into submission.
They are all guilty of much, the way is guilty as well, BUT I rather focus on the Positive things and move on with my life and stay focused on God and his unconditional love.
Certainly I did not express properly what my heart intended.
The world is full of schism, conflict, tourmoil, negativity. We would all do well to practice what we preach and not try to nick pick at things others say and try to CORRECT everyone. Those people who battle using God's word, are perhaps bitter inside and I say to that, get your hearts right with your God. Leave anger and bitterness where it belongs in the pit of hell. Life is too short to fight.
We can't change what all those groups are doing. The Bible tells us to speak to those who Ask us a reason of the hope that is in us, and to do it with meekness and love. Some of these posts are not loving at all.
Some of you folks just want to point a finger and accuse others, right or wrong, doesn't matter. Just get your venom out, does it make you feel better? Sorry if I do not believe in cutting and pasting all those statements I don't like that ya'll say. Will not lower myself to foolish standards. I just want to see others get past - the past.
For whatever reasons God led us all in different directions since the Way. I was forced out in a bad marriage, and chose not to return cause I was threatened my daughter would be taken away from me. Now I know it was the best thing for me, not to return.
I miss so many things tho. The Rock of Ages, in that it was FUN, musically inspiring, camping with other lovely folks, and I had FRIENDS abundantly. The pros outweigh the cons. It was the best thing for my life at the time. No one brain washed me, I was there on my own free will. Were any of ya'll forced there against your will?
I still stand on my previous statement that they are doing good things IF they are teaching Christ and Salvation. God will work in a person once they get started with their walk with God. That's one thing about God. Who can judge others, we do not have the right. What works for one person may not for another.
I am PRO - FREEDOM OF WILL.
My Free Will was Never in Jeopardy.
I am in control of ME and my mind. Anyone out there who is not in control? We can only be accountable to God for our own actions, not the actions of another. God will hold them accountable. I want to leave the judgement to God. My job is to be a good example. yeah, guarding the mystery. I feel it means to Love Unconditionally. To Love God with all our hearts, souls and mind. To love our neighbor as ourselves. Love the key.
Please don't get caught in the trees, you'll miss the beauty of the forrest. Forgive me for not being a Scholar or a College Educated Word-smith. I'm a simple minded Saint and of the Household of God. I claim no religion... I'm just doing the best I can with what I have.
God Bless you all. Don't worry about offending me with your fancy words of reproach or correction. I'll read through it and take the insults with a grain of sand. At least I know the position I hold in God's eyes.
This sure is an interesting place. Lots of bitterness, and many people trying to one-up someone else in the knowledge department.
Love does not behave itself like this. Knowledge gets puffed up. I can tell there are lots of puffy folks out there who want to BE RIGHT, and they forget what is all so important. Blessings to you and yours.
Thanks for replies such as they are. Great ones and Puffy ones.
Love you, tho.
Jeannette
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
I wish to CORRECT err Clarify my first POST. The Facts should of been listed with 1, 2 3. They all started with "We Learned", there should of only been Three. The rest was a general opinionated letter, expressing my feelings, not what I felt were FACTS.
We Did Learn Lots of Things. Useful stuff. Like the Power of positive thinking. God n Christ n You. Its a matter of what we do with what we learned and that we should keep on learning. We got keys and principles and pretty good education on how to study the bible., right? The rest is up to us. What we do with what we get, its our Free Will Choices.
Anyway, One day all this will seem so insignificant? I am looking forward to the Return of Christ.
Love Jeannette
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
Oh, in regard to the person who said I seem sincere. Lots of people do. Sincerity is no guarantee for Truth, tho.
I am a Truth Seeker, constantly striving to learn new stuff. I know there are answers out there to tons of questions I have. It didn't end for me with the Way. I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church, then my father forced us to study with his Cult, the JWs, those folks run peoples lives and 'fear motivate'. I left that, knowing full well JC was NOT Michael the Archangel. Since the Way I've read lots of Biblical Scholar's works to see if there is More to God and his word than I learned in 'preschool'. The Way being a good starting point for me, anyhow. Yeah my opinion. Sorry for those who have deep rooted regrets and they can't get past the pain and bitterness to see the positives in every experience they have in life. We weren't promised a thornless garden?
God is Not to Blame. Satan is the culpret. I blame him more than I do humankind of which I'm one. Folks like John Lynn, I choose to love him, and feel God loves him too. My decision.
LOVE!!! Jeannette
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
Hey Goey and others made Valid Points.
I'd like however to think differently, but ya'll make good sense. There are people in this world who LOOK UP TO LEADERS for their answers and to Give them direction, even to THINK FOR THEM. I was not one, however.
I was one of the few rebellious Believers. I always felt I ought to walk with GOD, not Wierwille. Until I met Greaspots, I had no earthly idea of the horrific stunts that VPW and other Leaders were guilty of.
I invested my time differently, not to be a FOLLOWER of the WAY, but a Learner With.
I apologize if my First Post on here ever sounded FOOLISH and overlooked the logical reasons why you folks are speaking outloud about what happened.
I find one thing odd, I recall when the leader of the Assembly of Gods sinned, they scolded him and he publically confessed and repented, and so he is now back in the Faith's good graces. I only knew of one thing I didn't approve that VPW did, and that was SMOKE.
I had NO IDEA he felt that Grace was a license for him to SIN, and do whatever he pleased at the expense of others. That saddens me.
But I never looked up to him or worshiped him in anyway. Same with Rev. Lynn. I respect what he taught. It saddens me that many people didn't live what they taught, or used the Bible to manipulate others. It didn't happen to me or anyone I knew so I am sorry.
I had NO IDEA... I was hoping that Love could heal all wounds. I have a few friends still caught up in the Way, and I can't get them to Greasespots, they are being told NOT to look at that letter or listen to others who left. Fear Motivation --- NEVER GOOD. They ought to get a clue as to how they have the right to Think for Themselves. I always took a stand for my freedome of thought, I had no idea how easy it was for others to be manipulated. Geeze.
Thanks for the awakening.... I'll try not to be SO Nieve in the future.
Love Jeannette
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Jeanette - I don't have any problems with you, or the decisions you've come to, or your right to express them here at GreaseSpot. This is a place for all of us to come to grips with the realities of our involvements with the Way International. The things we say here seem to disagree at times, because each one of us had a different involvement.
Discussions of these differences can help us come to a more accurate understanding of what happened to us, and they can help us make informed decisions about where we want to go from here.
There IS a crying need for God's people to recognize their relatedness, not just among ex-Wayfers, but among all Christians (even our relatedness with Trinitarian brethren).
I value your viewpoint and your posts.
One of the reasons I invested so much of my life into Wierwille's religious empire was because I thought he was teaching me the truth. When I actually started reading the Bible without PFAL filters, I realized Wierwille had trapped me in lies, and took advantage of my enthusiasm to help him trap other people in the same lies.
We've all come some distance since those days. At one time, John Lynn and CES helped me do that. However, bless their hearts, they stopped moving forward, and they are content to sit in some of Wierwille's old lies.
To sit and be quiet about CES' errors, especially when CES operatives are aggressively recruiting at GreaseSpot Cafe, would be just as wrong for me as to be silent about the errors of PFAL.
Raf, oldies and I love each other dearly. We've been through a heck of a lot of arguments together, sometimes backing each other up, sometimes fighting in a way that must seem tooth and nail to outsiders. But that's how we learn from each other. We aren't enemies, and I hope you will see that as you become better acquainted with us.
Do you need to be able to refute one of us on some obscure point of hermaneutics in order for your viewpoint to be valid? No. And again I write, No.
Love,
Steve
P.S. - I have an aunt whose name is Jeannette. She likes to tell us all her problems are "Jeannettic" :-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Jeanette,
Try hitting your enter key every once in awhile to make paragraphs. One line after another with no spaces between makes things difficult to read. Many people will not even read such posts. Fair Enough - only reading what you wrote - how you wrote it. Fine, but in focusing on the positive one does necessarily have to ignore or gloss over the negatives and abuses. True. But is anyone here at GS trying to CORRECT "everyone"? I dont think so. However, it does appear that YOU have taking it upon yourself to CORRECT us here at GS with your charges of "bitterness" and "anger" and being "unloving". What's up with that?Are you not "pointing a finger" yourself when you make such accusations? Maybe you should takes a little of your own advice - eh?
A wise choice I think. The TWI you miss does not exist. But even back then the abuses were rampant, taking place behind closed doors. I left early (82) when I saw the abuses beginning - when leaders began meddling and demanding obescience. But later folks were indeed "forced" to stay with threats like "God won't protect you if you leave" or you will be a Greasespot by midnight" No, no one was physically forced to stay, TWI's method was even more hineous than that. They threatened folks with loss of God's love and protection, loss of family and friends and even loss of life. Ok, So they teach Christ (but him being "absent" in practice) and they teach salvation also (their version of it ....) But then ... they set theselves up as God's only true "Household" and threaten anyone that leaves with the things I mentioned above. This is just the tip of the iceberg .... Go ahead and stand by your statement - but I think an objective look at the scriptures will show that their whole method of operation is ungodly and self-serving if not evil. I don't think that bondage to a corrupt corporation pretending to be God's True Household works for anyone - even if they say and believe that it does. Don't mistake the exposing of TWI's ungodliness and abuses with "judgement" that is reserved for God ( How many time have I heard that one?) Doesn't the scripture say to judge all things? Aren't were warned about false teachers and those who would put us under bondage. To point out such things is not taking on the "judgment" that is reserved for God - it is doing what we are supposed to do. I agree, but in seeing the beauty of the forest, let's not be so naive as to think there no thorns and thistles. Well, I see that you weren't worried with your own words of "reproach and correction" aimed at the "angry", "bitter" and "unloving" folks here at GS. - So I think it only fair that you not be offended by the "insults" that you percive may come your way. (Has anyone insulted you really?) As for me, I am only trying get you to see things from a little more balanced prospective - but if you perceive that as "reproach" or "insult" then sorry - you'll just have to deal with it.Stick around and maybe you can learn a thing or two here. Seems like you have a lot of preconcieved ideas about us.
Again, Welcome to Greasespot
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Raf - Let me clue you in to a little trick spiritual quacks use when they want to read foreign meanings into the Bible (eisegesis, as opposed to exegesis).
First, settle on a word or phrase that sounds plausibly biblical, but can't be found in any concordance. Then, build all your arguments around that word or phrase.
That way, no one can inconveniently find and point out a use of that word or phrase in the Bible that contradicts your pet error.
For instance, is "the new birth" part of Wierwille's Mystery? According to the PFAL book, the new birth first became available on the day of Pentecost. Elsewhere in PFAL we learn that the events of Pentecost had been kept absolutely secret, since they were part of the "administration" of the "mystery".
What then are we to make of Jesus' discourse with Nicodemus in John 3? Discussing things that sound an awful lot like "the new birth", Jesus asked "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?"
Jesus expected every master of Israel to know about "the new birth"!?! How could it be part of the "administration" of the "mystery"?
But can we say, "The Bible says Jesus expected the leaders of Israel to know about the new birth well before the day of Pentecost." No, we cannot, because the phrase "the new birth" doesn't occur anywhere in the Bible.
Let's look at the word "rapture". Can we learn anything about "the rapture" by looking in a concordance? No, we can't. The word doesn't appear in the concordance.
So we look in Bullinger's and find that the word translated "caught" in I Thessalonians 4:17 comes from the Greek word "harpazo".
We look up the uses of "harpazo" and its cognates to discover its semantic range. Does this process tell us anything about the "rapture"? No, because "rapture" doesn't come directly from the Greek word "harpazo". It comes from the Latin word "rapere", which has a semantic range that differs from the semantic range of "harpazo".
So, what biblical information do we have, apart from the bald declarations of Darby, Bullinger and Wierwille, regarding the nature of "the rapture"? None, whatsoever.
(By the way, The use of "harpazo" in I Thessalonians 4:17 is not participial. There is a good noun cognate of "harpazo". It's the word "harpage". If Paul meant to write about "the rapture", why didn't he use the word "harpage"? Hmmmm... maybe he didn't intend to write about "the rapture"... maybe he had a reason for that.)
You wrote, "Because the 19th century neologism is equally accurate , and cannot be confused with the various other incidents of 'gathering together' mentioned in scripture."
What evidence can you cite, Raf, other than the unsupported words of Darby, that the resurrection and gathering described in I Thesssalonians 4:13-18 is anything other than the resurrection and gathering promised in Ezekiel 37 and described at various other places in the New Testament?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Steve,
You're making assumptions about my argument that are incorrect.
Let's back up a bit and make this a bit more clear:
You said "Rapture is an unbiblical word" (I paraphrase).
I said, "Rapture comes from the Latin, not the Greek."
You counter that we can't get the word "rapture" from the Greek, which is... exactly what I said. The Greek word you cite is translated "caught up." That Latin word I cited is translated "caught up" in the exact same verse. All I am saying is that the word "rapture," because of this one simple truth, is Biblical, unless you are going to argue that we can't use words with Latin origins in this discussion, which is your prerogative but I would respectfully disagree.
NOW, based on what I wrote, you don't need to change a thing about your theology or eschatology. I limited my argument to ONE aspect of your earlier post: whether the word "rapture" is Biblical. Even if you don't agree with my conclusion, can you at least agree that I have a solid argument?
Some other things you note (which I think are strong): Jesus expressed surprise that Nicodemus did not know what he meant by "born again." Jesus did not use the words "new birth." The Bible does not use those words. Yet many Christians recognize the concept as scriptural. Do you? (Maybe you don't: Vince Finnegan now teaches that to be born again is a reference to the resurrection, not to some spiritual experience we have while on this earth). If that's the case, then I used a poor example in making my argument that unbiblical words can be used to describe Biblical concepts (ie, even if "rapture" IS an unbiblical word, that doesn't mean it's an unbiblical concept. If "new birth" is a poor example of this, then certainly "advent" and "ascension" are good examples. Neither word is in scripture, not even in your concordance).
Speaking of which:
This is strawman, Steve, and you're a better debater than this. I never said you could find "rapture" in a concordance... from the Greek. HOWEVER, if you had a concordance from the Vulgate, do you think you might be able to find some information on the Latin word in question? Hmm?
You say the Latin word has a different semantic range than the Greek word. I'm unfamiliar with the term "semantic range," but I assume from context you mean that they don't correspond directly in meaning, denotation and connotation. I respect that, if it's what you're saying, but it's extraneous to my argument (which, again, is SOLELY that "rapture" is not an unbiblical word).
This is like saying "if Peter wanted to say 'repent and undergo baptism,' he would have said so, but instead he said 'repent and be baptized.'" You're drawing a distinction where none exists.
Steve, can you find one post where I even MENTIONED Darby, much less cited him as a reliable source? One? Come on, one? (Okay, maybe there's one, but I don't remember it).
And here's the whopper, the one where you misread me the worst:
I said that the "rapture" aka "caught away" of I Thessalonians 4 "cannot be confused with the various other incidents of 'gathering together' mentioned in scripture."
YOU changed that to imply that I said "the resurrection and gathering described in I Thesssalonians 4:13-18 is [something] other than the resurrection and gathering promised in Ezekiel 37 and described at various other places in the New Testament?"
Problem: that's not what I said.
Acts 4:26 states (quoting Psalm 2),
"The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ."
Is this the gathering together of I Thessalonians 4?
No. So when you use the words "gathering together" to describe I Thessalonians 4, is there a possibility that someone might not understand what you mean? Whereas, if you use the term word "the rapture," does ANYONE doubt that you're talking about I Thessalonians 4?
Limit my argument to this: Rapture is a Biblical word. According to you, Steve (and you make a compelling case), what Wierwille, CES and others teach about The Rapture is based on a host of misunderstandings and misinterpretations, and CES would be better off abandoning that mindset and going strictly by what the Bible teaches. The "Rapture" of I Thessalonians 4 IS the same thing (again, this is your argument) as the resurrection and gathering promised in Ezekiel 37 and described at various other places in the New Testament.
So what's the problem?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'll even try to make this a little easier, Steve: Before responding to my post, please note the following...
Raf is NOT saying that The Rapture is a pretribulation event.
Raf is NOT defending dispensationalism.
Raf is NOT saying that the "Church" is a separate and distinct entity from Israel.
Raf is NOT saying that I Thessalonians 7 and Ezekial 37 are describing different events.
ALL RAF IS SAYING, IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
All Raf is saying is that the word "rapture" is derived from the Latin Vulgate's form of the words "caught away," and is thus "Biblical," regardless of how it has been interpreted or misinterpreted by dispensationalists, covenant theologists, atheists, agnostics, rastafarians, and Democrats.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Raf - I realize you are stating other peoples positions, and not necessarily arguing FOR those things. For instance, "Because the 19th century neologism is equally accurate, and cannot be confused with the various other incidents of 'gathering together' mentioned in scripture" is more likely CES' answer to the question "why use 'rapture'?"
The simple truth is, if we want to know what's actually written in the Bible, the word "rapture" is NOT "equally accurate". Darby swiped it from the Irvingites in order to ARTIFICIALLY distinguish the resurrection and gathering of I Thessalonians 4 from the resurrection and gathering of Ezekiel 37. If he had not done so, his whole system of dispensations would have failed because it is an error, biblically.
The dispensationalist emperor's new clothes consist of the pretribulation "rapture" of the "Church". The emperor is nekkid, and as long as we stick with Darby's unscriptural language, we go along with the crowd, admiring his wonderful new theology.
CES makes a big deal about how they stand against tradition for the truth. They haven't made the effort to see for themselves, and they've turned unhearing ears to the admonition of many capable councilors, that the "truth" for which they contend is no less a tradition of men than the things they teach against.
I don't have a gripe against you, Rafael. I do have a gripe against CES' devolution from scriptural accuracy.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Quite the opposite: I am not stating ANYONE's position regarding dispensationalism or any other topic.
It's not "more likely CES' answer..." It IS CES' answer.
We're going in circles. I'll be first to cry uncle on this.
That's quite a leap. If Darby had called it "The catching away" instead of the "rapture," he could still come up with exactly the same eschatology using different terms (which Wierwille proved, in your own words, by using a Biblically accurate term but promoting the exact same eschatology).
None of which has anything to do with what I've been trying to say, but I've already cried uncle.
See above.
Nor I against you. I hope you don;t see it that way.
And you are presenting your case well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Steve,
I think you are going a bit overboard on "scriptural accuracuy" in regards to what makes a word "biblical."
There are numerous terms and phrases used in Christianity that cannot be found in the Bible - King James or otherwise - yet it seems you are wanting folk to only use terms found in the King James version.
I think it makes little difference what words or phrase are used - as long as the idea or concept is conveyed. "Gathering together" is translated "assembling" in the RSV. Both terms are "biblical". However as I understand it most of Christianity refers to this event as "the rapture." Same concept - same event.
Honestly, it seems to me that since rapture is the most commonly used term for this event, that if you want folks to know what you are talking about, "rapture" would be the most "accurate" way of communicating this concept - for the sake of understanding.
What is important is that the correct idea/concept is conveyed - not that a particular English word is used in the name of being "biblical."
I dont think it is too reasonable to expect all of Christianity conform to your very strict idea of what is "biblical."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Steve,
CES is hardly unique in their pro-rapture stance, which appears quite common among a variety of fundamentalists and "Bible-believers".
What fascinates me is the fact that some pro-rapturists and scripture-splitters, where elaborating their position , curiously arrive to "Marcionite" expressions without betraying so much a clue or awareness that Marcion even existed. How is this so? Someday I should post points from CES' "20 Reasons to Believe the Rapture" (or some such title) side by side with expressions by Tertullian. It's uncanny.
I don't rule out that such a belief existed in antiquity, especially (as one who subscribes to the theory) the Pauline material first circulated -- and may have even originated --within Marcionite circles, where the expectation of a Good God removing His newly acquired "property" from the realm of the Demiurge - prior to the Just One commencing the "wrath to come" -- would not have been so out of place at all.
Marcion's Good God was even depicted as a "robber" by his critics (perhaps something of a "Robin Hood" by followers), one who swoops down from the heaven into a world not his own to "seize" or plunder the property of the world lord.
Perhaps it's no accident that "rapine" and "rapture" share the same Latin etymological root.
I think there's a lot more research in this subject which remains to be done. I know I've hardly scratched the surface there.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Lordy, you guys, get a [doctrinal] room!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Heh heh heh.
Steve, can I point this out to you in a few different words, maybe you can see my point:
You said: "The simple truth is, if we want to know what's actually written in the Bible, the word "rapture" is NOT "equally accurate". Darby swiped it from the Irvingites in order to ARTIFICIALLY distinguish the resurrection and gathering of I Thessalonians 4 from the resurrection and gathering of Ezekiel 37. If he had not done so, his whole system of dispensations would have failed because it is an error, biblically."
But you also said: "Wierwille always used the biblically correct term for the event, 'the gathering together', even though he misplaced it before the tribulation, and mistakenly restricted it to the "Church" as opposed to the believing remnant of Israel with believing Gentiles grafted in on the same basis, by grace through faith."
Now, can you agree with me that the terminology used does not free one from the probability of error (or accuracy, for that matter). Darby doesn't get away with his eschatology by using the word "rapture," because Wierwille has the exact same eschatology without using the word "rapture." You're giving way too much weight to the significance of this word as it relates to Darby's "error" (assuming you're right and he's wrong here). In doing so, might I suggest you're going too far: insisting that the word itself is not Biblical when its origin is clearly from the Latin Vulgate, which is a Bible. A little too far? A little? Wee bit? Nit?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
ha ! can john lynn come ? ha ha ha ha ha ha
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
hehehe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Lourdy Have the Merci what the hell in heaven was this thread about?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Does JAL sit around and make a thread and kick back the roller coaster his words and those who respond and he smokes a big ole cigar in the eye of the storm...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I guess Steve and I figured if JAL won't debate here, dangit, we will!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Raf,
Too funny! I was just thinking (see, if fits me) that this has to be a record for a thread where the person starting it does not participate at all. Nice work, if you can get it.
JT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
"Rapture" is a word.
People use it when they talk about the Bible.
Therefore, "rapture" is a biblical word.
***
Geeze loueeze!
With that kind of reasoning, how can you guys fault Mike for saying PFAL is God-breathed?
***
PFAL has words in it.
Some of them say something or other about something being God-breathed.
Therefore, PFAL is God-breathed.
***
Get a clue people.
Stage magicians make a living by misdirecting peoples' attention. They know that the human eye is attracted to motion. They make a broad sweeping motion with one hand, while working their chicanery through unobtrusive movements of the other.
Wierwille swindled us, folks. Dispensationalism was... not an important... not a major... but a NECESSARY... component of that swindle. Wierwille couldn't have done what he did so well without dispensationalism. And dispensationalism doesn't work without using the unbiblical word "rapture", to distract peoples' attention from what's actually written in the Bible.
Wierwille didn't invent the swindle, and he isn't the only one who has practiced it.
The Irvingites were the first ones to use "rapture" the way we might recognize it today, as the first part of a two-stage appearing. They did so in 1830. Darby lifted it from them and used it to postulate a pre-tribulation "rapture" of the "Church".
Darby's main theme was that the "Church" is completely separate and discontinuous from Israel. No prophecies "addressed to Israel" could be applied to the "Church". Therefore, Darby had to get the "Church" out of here before the tribulation.
"Voila!" Darby exclaims on the lime-lit stage, using his right hand to proudly wave the pretribulation "rapture" of the "Church" over his head.
With his left hand, he surruptitiously pockets our genuinely biblical heritage. He pockets the promise of resurrection and return to the land. He pockets the New Testament promised in Jeremiah 31. He pockets Paul's conception of the Church; as the believing remnant of Israel under the New Testament, with believing Gentiles, as Gentiles, grafted in on the same basis as the remnant of Israel, by grace through faith.
If you really get honest with the logical conclusion of dispensationalism, Darby surruptitiously pockets the cross of Christ.
Scofield found out he could turn a profit by selling Bibles. Ordinarily, that would have been a difficult thing to do, because you can't copyright the good old King Jimmy. However, if you mix your notes in there with the text, you CAN copyright YOUR VERSION of the Bible (that's why we have so many different "study" Bibles today) without having to go to the trouble of making your own translation. Scofield included Darby's swindle among his notes. More "rapture".
Early 20th century Bible believers were having a hard time in the face of 19th century materialism, what with Darwin, Marx, et al. The believers held a series of conferences. Dispensationalists were firebrands at the time. They felt their interpretation was "scientific" enough to stand in the face of modernity. Dispensationalists hijacked the speaking committees of the fundamentalist conferences, and Darby's swindle became identified with fundamentalism.
To question the pre-tribulation "rapture" of the "Church" became tantamount to questioning the authenticity of the Bible itself.
Sure... "rapture" MUST be a biblical word!
It's still that way in many places today.
Wierwille picked up Darby's swindle and gave it his own spin, as he did with just about everything. Gotta be unique, dontcha know. He replaced Darby's "rapture" with the biblical phrase "gathering together", but Wierwille still adhered to Darby's deceptive definitions and principles.
The leaders of CES re-examined some of the things Wierwille taught. They rejected the "law" of believing, and recovered some things about the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
But they are still mesmerized by Darby's stunning performance before the lime-lights. By returning to "rapture", the unbiblical word Darby bandied about so brilliantly, Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser have moved even farther away from noticing what Darby covertly slipped into his pocket.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If you're going to insist on this kind of absurd oversimplification (aka utter misrepresentation) of our arguments, then it's really not worth pursuing.
You tell us to get a clue, yet in a single post you insist tht the word "rapture" is essential to Darby's misrepresentation while simultaneously showing that Wierwille carried on the same misrepresentation without the word rapture.
I say we stop discussing the ascension of Christ or the advent of Christ, since those are clearly not Biblical words.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
I think you nailed it, Song.
Only JL aint anywhere near the eye of the storm.
---
Mere religion has a way of giving titles without merit.
And so a man calls himself a prophet or a preacher or guru some other thing,
and does most of his preaching Spirit in front of people who already agree.
Also, this type stands alone in front of a crowd,
who are only allowed to clap, mostly.
If there is any sort of dialogue about Spirit,
it is isolated or private. Among peers only.
woop dee doo
Sometimes, they'll even go as far as to get a handful of their prophets on a stage,
talking to each other, which is not much, seeing as how they already only agree.
Seekers of pleasure and comfort when it comes to spiritual dialogue.
---
John Lynn,
(and ilk)
Seems to me, that if someone if gonna go around saying they have something Spiritual to offer,
they ought to be skilled enough to sit among people of different religions,
engage in a meaningful dialogue about differences and similarities,
including, fielding questions from the unpicked crowd,
and thus, be able to prove some level of merit as "one of God's special people."
Do it live and uncensored. And without a freakin social safety net.
Here is one example:
Contemplative Dialogue
If one's bag of spiritual tricks are supposed to be the cure-all for humanities ills,
then WHY NOT enter the social wilderness, alone, "armed only with God,"
make peace with "enemies," heal the sick, solve problems, offer wisdom and vision?
Unless the devil has got you on the run.
Let the sins/ills/complaints of all rise to heaven like the smoke of a cigar and deal with it.
And be drawn to it.
Get beyond merely talking about how "it" was done so long ago.
Get beyond seeking the company of mostly agreement.
Get to doing it in spite of the hurricane.
(The hurricane only comes to heal the sick, anyway).
Try sitting alone among a group of strangers and "wow them" with the wonders of your God.
Or seek the company of the "antagonist" and grow from the struggle.
Jacob did, whom we revere.
So did Jesus, whom we adore.
So did Paul, whom we admire.
God spoke to Job from eye of the whirlwind.
Just as He is heard in silence.
Just some thoughts.
Perhaps you have tasted them a few times.
I say, make it and keep it a habit before you diminish yourself further.
thanks again Song.
peace all
may we continue to find richer and richer soil to grow in.
Todd
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.