Do "rapture" believers realize it isn't part of consistent Christian tradition?

[CopticChristian]

OK I think I get the picture.

So in this thread when the claim is made that the LB rapture is wrong, it is not directly based on any infallible pronouncement from the pope.

So whatever the merits of these claims are (and btw I believe they do have merit) they are in the end fallible, and thus it is possible that they are incorrect per Catholicism.

Which is pretty much the way I see it. When I open my Bible, I am sorry but it just doesn’t read to me like the Late Great Planet Earth. And from my not-so-expert knowledge of history I just don’t see the Late Great Planet Earth there either. But who knows, maybe I am missing something somewhere.

Still I for one don’t get it.

I sense that you may believe that every issue like Dispensationalism etc is declared sin, not sin, error, not error by the Papacy or the Magesterium via the Pope. This does not happen often and only in times of great need. Look back at the many Councils…Since Trent there has been Vatican I and Vatican II.

The issue with Dispensationalism as I pointed out for you does not require a decree…The elements for seeing why the LB fantasy is to be avoided is because it denies a central element of belief…

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Dispensationalism denies the Creed. I could not accept any church teaching that Baptism does not forgive sins…there are those that deny this and the Church does not have to list the individuals…it is the same for the LB notion of the “church” bein plan B and not as the Bible says.

The Pillar and foundation of truth, the mystery hidden for all ages through which the manifold wisdom of God is known, by which God reconciles the world to Himself. The Church does not have to make any statements on the LB series as 1700 years it was incorporated for us to know that there is only One Church…not many…

 

[AmateurPianist]

I sense that you may believe that every issue like Dispensationalism etc is declared sin, not sin, error, not error by the Papacy or the Magesterium via the Pope. This does not happen often and only in times of great need. Look back at the many Councils…Since Trent there has been Vatican I and Vatican II.

The issue with Dispensationalism as I pointed out for you does not require a decree…The elements for seeing why the LB fantasy is to be avoided is because it denies a central element of belief…

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Dispensationalism denies the Creed. I could not accept any church teaching that Baptism does not forgive sins…there are those that deny this and the Church does not have to list the individuals…it is the same for the LB notion of the “church” bein plan B and not as the Bible says.

The Pillar and foundation of truth, the mystery hidden for all ages through which the manifold wisdom of God is known, by which God reconciles the world to Himself. The Church does not have to make any statements on the LB series as 1700 years it was incorporated for us to know that there is only One Church…not many…

Hmm…has the Catholic church infallibly ruled on Dispensationalism, or is that your interpretation? Oh I guess you said it has not in reading your post again.

Now I have never been in a church that taught using the term Dispensationalism. And the last time I read about it was many years ago. I was skeptical of it then as I recall. So I decided a one hour brush up would be in order.

My first impressions.

• I was skeptical of the link between the LB rapture and Dispensationalism, but the sources I read linked them. So I was wrong. But it still seems to me it is possible to believe in a LB rapture while at the same time not believing in Dispensationalism. But I may be wrong here.
• It seems to be somebody’s nice, new, structured idea as how to interpret the Bible. However, the Bible contains no instructions that it should be interpreted Dispensationally. So it is no more than somebody’s nice, new idea. I recall that was my impression when I read on this many years ago.
• There seems to be a whole lot of disagreements between Dispensationalists as to how these nice, new ideas work. Or what exactly Dispensationalism is for that. Like many titles and terms, I imagine there can be a broad interpretation of the title/term and then again narrow interpretations.
• Since the Bible does not instruct me to interpret it Dispensationally, I don’t see why I should go there at all. I for one am skeptical of nice, new ideas that do not have any foundation in Christian history. But that is me.
• But one the other hand, if one were to broadly define Dispensationalism as different time periods where God is doing different stuff, I suppose I could see maybe three dispensations: (1) before Christ, (2) after Christ but still on earthy (3) eternity with Christ. I do suspect Dispensationalism is more than that. And like I said I don’t see the need to interpret the Bible “dispensationally” or what benefit that would be for me.
• Now at first glance, I don’t see where these nice, new ideas violate any creed or essential of the Christian faith. You do obviously.
• Again, this is admittedly a first glance level for me since I have not even encountered the term for many years.

 

[Telstar]

AmateurPianist, it seems to me that you really want to believe that ‘the rapture’ will happen the way the LB books portray it, so you’re trying to find any way possible to justify that belief in your own mind. Yet, you still seem to insist that it should be grounded in Christianity from the beginning, which is impossible. You also appear to be trying to use sola scriptura as a means to prove it’s validity, which is also impossible.

Even though the Catholic Church doesn’t address the ‘rapture’ as it’s defined by non-Catholics, the fact is that it does state that those events (Jesus returning) will not occur until the end of time, when every soul will be resurrected and judged, along with everyone that’s still alive on earth at that point in time. That means that when Jesus appears on the clouds of heaven for all to see, it will already be over. The tribulation will be finished, done, kaput!

There is no one on earth that will escape the tribulation, any more than anyone has ever really escaped from suffering, at any other time that God has sent punishments on mankind. Sure, it’s a comforting thought to believe it will happen that way, but it’s completely against everything that the Bible says about God’s Justice and the suffering related to it. The good people never get a ‘free pass’ out of suffering. They suffer as much, if not more than the bad ones. God takes all of that suffering and applies His Mercy to those souls, and all of the others that Jesus came to save.

Job suffered unbelievable torments, even though he was one of the very few men on earth at that time, to be living exactly as God intended men to live. Why did he have to be punished? He suffered through it all to give us an example of how we should always remain faithful to God, even in the middle of the worst suffering imaginable, because it all serves a purpose in His plan. “Isaiah 55:[8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” As long as we remain focused on Him, we’ll get through it, no matter how bad it gets.

 

[AmateurPianist]

AmateurPianist, it seems to me that you really want to believe that ‘the rapture’ will happen the way the LB books portray it, so you’re trying to find any way possible to justify that belief in your own mind. Yet, you still seem to insist that it should be grounded in Christianity from the beginning, which is impossible. You also appear to be trying to use sola scriptura as a means to prove it’s validity, which is also impossible.

Actually.

(1) I don’t have any special interest in wanting it to happen either way. I am of the age where most likely I will meet Jesus the same way Christians for 2000 years have met Jesus.
(2) I don’t’ like to use the words Sola Scriptura to define my beliefs in Scripture. Whether I believe in it depends upon your defintion of the term.
(3) I actually like what is called the Wesleyan Quadrangle which believes in the primacy of Scripture but also believes that it should conform to history, experience, and reason. Whether this is Sola Scriptura again depends on definitions. I don’t see the LB rapture as all that historical, which is the premise of this thread.
(4) The most straightforward and simple reading of Scripture in my very fallible opinion supports a second coming that occurs at the end of the age. Some might call this “post tribulation”. I don’t yet have a formed opinion on the 1000 year millenium stuff.
(5) I haven’t eliminated the possibility of the LB rapture. But Scripture does not read that way to me if I am honest with myself…

Even though the Catholic Church doesn’t address the ‘rapture’ as it’s defined by non-Catholics, the fact is that it does state that those events (Jesus returning) will not occur until the end of time, when every soul will be resurrected and judged, along with everyone that’s still alive on earth at that point in time. That means that when Jesus appears on the clouds of heaven for all to see, it will already be over. The tribulation will be finished, done, kaput!

There is no one on earth that will escape the tribulation, any more than anyone has ever really escaped from suffering, at any other time that God has sent punishments on mankind. Sure, it’s a comforting thought to believe it will happen that way, but it’s completely against everything that the Bible says about God’s Justice and the suffering related to it. The good people never get a ‘free pass’ out of suffering. They suffer as much, if not more than the bad ones. God takes all of that suffering and applies His Mercy to those souls, and all of the others that Jesus came to save.

Job suffered unbelievable torments, even though he was one of the very few men on earth at that time, to be living exactly as God intended men to live. Why did he have to be punished? He suffered through it all to give us an example of how we should always remain faithful to God, even in the middle of the worst suffering imaginable, because it all serves a purpose in His plan. “Isaiah 55:[8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” As long as we remain focused on Him, we’ll get through it, no matter how bad it gets.

That is actually believable to me. More believable than your LB book du jour IMHO.

I guess the only place where we differ is that I am open to being wrong on all this. I also do not think this issue rises to the level of a “great heresy” either way. And in the end it is not all that important to me, because again I expect to be meeting Jesus in the same way my grandmother did.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hmm…has the Catholic church infallibly ruled on Dispensationalism, or is that your interpretation? Oh I guess you said it has not in reading your post again.

Now I have never been in a church that taught using the term Dispensationalism. And the last time I read about it was many years ago. I was skeptical of it then as I recall. So I decided a one hour brush up would be in order.

My first impressions.

• I was skeptical of the link between the LB rapture and Dispensationalism, but the sources I read linked them. So I was wrong. But it still seems to me it is possible to believe in a LB rapture while at the same time not believing in Dispensationalism. But I may be wrong here.
• It seems to be somebody’s nice, new, structured idea as how to interpret the Bible. However, the Bible contains no instructions that it should be interpreted Dispensationally. So it is no more than somebody’s nice, new idea. I recall that was my impression when I read on this many years ago.
• There seems to be a whole lot of disagreements between Dispensationalists as to how these nice, new ideas work. Or what exactly Dispensationalism is for that. Like many titles and terms, I imagine there can be a broad interpretation of the title/term and then again narrow interpretations.
  *** Since the Bible does not instruct me to interpret it Dispensationally,** I don’t see why I should go there at all. I for one am skeptical of nice, new ideas that do not have any foundation in Christian history. But that is me.
• But one the other hand, if one were to broadly define **Dispensationalism **as different time periods where God is doing different stuff, I suppose I could see maybe three dispensations: (1) before Christ, (2) after Christ but still on earthy (3) eternity with Christ. I do suspect Dispensationalism is more than that. And like I said I don’t see the need to interpret the Bible “dispensationally” or what benefit that would be for me.
• Now at first glance, I don’t see where these nice, new ideas violate any creed or essential of the Christian faith. You do obviously.
• Again, this is admittedly a first glance level for me since I have not even encountered the term for many years.

You can believe in the Rapture if you like as long as one does not accept the whole of Dispensationalism.

You stumbled onto something that you mentioned twice…The Bible does not instruct me…and you added Dispensationally…you might add in anything…for you to see this then you understand that the Bible does not instruct interpretation.

To accept Dispensationalism is to reject Covenants. This is what I am talking about…you cannot see Scripture, the Church and the promises of God as Dispensational and Covenantal…this is the rub.

 

[Telstar]

Actually.

(1) I don’t have any special interest in wanting it to happen either way. I am of the age where most likely I will meet Jesus the same way Christians for 2000 years have met Jesus.

OK, then I guess I misunderstood your tenacity in asking about whether or not it was OK for a Catholic to believe it, or if the Pope had somehow denounced it as being ‘heretical’. Catholics are always free to choose whether to accept Church teachings on things that are not considered to be binding (as in Dogma), without fear of mortal sin. So, as long as they don’t deny that Jesus will come again to Judge mankind, they probably have some leeway on the details of the rest of it. But, since the Scripture is pretty clear that when He comes on the clouds He will be coming as the Judge, I seriously doubt that the LB version could be true. I tend to believe what the Church says about it. No one will have any secret knowledge, or a transporter, to get them out of it.

(2) I don’t’ like to use the words Sola Scriptura to define my beliefs in Scripture. Whether I believe in it depends upon your defintion of the term.

The only definition I ever knew was “Bible alone”. It defines itself, since it’s literally translated that way. Personally, I think it’s a misnomer to even claim to believe in the Bible alone, since everything in it has to be interpreted by someone in order to really understand it. Whether we listen to a preacher’s interpretation, or interpret it on our own, we’re still basing our beliefs on some interpretation of what it says. Catholics tend to follow the Church’s interpretations since She wrote the Book, and has 2000 years of theological experience in understanding what it teaches.

(3) I actually like what is called the Wesleyan Quadrangle which believes in the primacy of Scripture but also believes that it should conform to history, experience, and reason. Whether this is Sola Scriptura again depends on definitions. I don’t see the LB rapture as all that historical, which is the premise of this thread.

I don’t really know what that is. I also don’t understand what you mean by “believes in the primacy of Scripture but also believes that it should conform to history, experience, and reason”. Are you saying that those things should affect how we interpret scripture? I’m confused.

(4) The most straightforward and simple reading of Scripture in my very fallible opinion supports a second coming that occurs at the end of the age. Some might call this “post tribulation”. I don’t yet have a formed opinion on the 1000 year millenium stuff.

I agree, and since the Church teaches pretty much the same interpretation, I think we’re pretty safe with that. I’m not sure about the ‘1000 years’ thing. Usually, when the number 1000 is used in the Bible, it refers to a very large number and might not be a literal 1000 of anything. I tend to think it may the time from the beginning of the ‘last days’ (when Jesus was Resurrected) to the end. But, I really don’t know about that.

(5) I haven’t eliminated the possibility of the LB rapture. But Scripture does not read that way to me if I am honest with myself…

Yeah, I think it’s just a very poor interpretation on their part, combined with the ‘pie in the sky’ attitude of wanting to be exempt from any suffering. It’s all part of what I like to refer to as the “Happy, happy, joy, joy” version of Christianity. Some Christians just want to see the happy side of Christianity but want nothing to do with the thought of any pain or suffering involved. They want nothing to do with the cross, even though Jesus told us to take up our cross and follow Him. They’re not being very realistic about Who Jesus was, by holding onto that point of view.

That is actually believable to me. More believable than your LB book du jour IMHO.

Thanks.

I guess the only place where we differ is that I am open to being wrong on all this. I also do not think this issue rises to the level of a “great heresy” either way. And in the end it is not all that important to me, because again I expect to be meeting Jesus in the same way my grandmother did.

I agree. I figure if I stick with what the Church teaches about it, I’ll be fine. I’ve always had the wish to be able to see it happen, but I’m not getting any younger, so if it’s going to happen, I hope it happens soon, or I’ll be going the ‘old fashioned’ way, myself. LOL

 

[CopticChristian]

OK, then I guess I misunderstood your tenacity in asking about whether or not it was OK for a Catholic to believe it, or if the Pope had somehow denounced it as being ‘heretical’. Catholics are always free to choose whether to accept Church teachings on things that are not considered to be binding (as in Dogma), without fear of mortal sin. So, as long as they don’t deny that Jesus will come again to Judge mankind, they probably have some leeway on the details of the rest of it. But, since the Scripture is pretty clear that when He comes on the clouds He will be coming as the Judge, I seriously doubt that the LB version could be true. I tend to believe what the Church says about it. No one will have any secret knowledge, or a transporter, to get them out of it.

The only definition I ever knew was “Bible alone”. It defines itself, since it’s literally translated that way. Personally, I think it’s a misnomer to even claim to believe in the Bible alone, since everything in it has to be interpreted by someone in order to really understand it. Whether we listen to a preacher’s interpretation, or interpret it on our own, we’re still basing our beliefs on some interpretation of what it says. Catholics tend to follow the Church’s interpretations since She wrote the Book, and has 2000 years of theological experience in understanding what it teaches.

I don’t really know what that is. I also don’t understand what you mean by “believes in the primacy of Scripture but also believes that it should conform to history, experience, and reason”. Are you saying that those things should affect how we interpret scripture? I’m confused.

I agree, and since the Church teaches pretty much the same interpretation, I think we’re pretty safe with that. I’m not sure about the ‘1000 years’ thing. Usually, when the number 1000 is used in the Bible, it refers to a very large number and might not be a literal 1000 of anything. I tend to think it may the time from the beginning of the ‘last days’ (when Jesus was Resurrected) to the end. But, I really don’t know about that.

Yeah, I think it’s just a very poor interpretation on their part, combined with the ‘pie in the sky’ attitude of wanting to be exempt from any suffering. It’s all part of what I like to refer to as the “Happy, happy, joy, joy” version of Christianity. Some Christians just want to see the happy side of Christianity but want nothing to do with the thought of any pain or suffering involved. They want nothing to do with the cross, even though Jesus told us to take up our cross and follow Him. They’re not being very realistic about Who Jesus was, by holding onto that point of view.

Thanks.

I agree. I figure if I stick with what the Church teaches about it,** I’ll be fine.** I’ve always had the wish to be able to see it happen, but I’m not getting any younger, so if it’s going to happen, I hope it happens soon, or I’ll be going the ‘old fashioned’ way, myself. LOL

This is wisdom. There was once a poem by Robert Frost “If”…Rudyard Kipling…

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;

If Knox, Zwingli, Calvin and Luther stuck with what the Church taught them then…we’d be fine.

 

[Izdaari]

CopticChristian has it right, we believe in the 2nd Coming.

However, I was taught that Jesus didn’t know the time. So if He choose not to tell us, and even to suggest by the manner in which He said it, that it was not something anyone should spend a lot of time worrying about, I’ve decided that is the approach to take. I believe that also happens to be the Church’s opinion.

Very well and succinctly said! That is my belief also.

 

[ChristGirl]

oh my goodness so much information out there.

I don’t know if you heard about the “Mayan Calendar” where apparently the world is supposed to end in 2012 of May. I always wanted to find out what Christians believe in as far as the Rapture.

So as I skimmed through some of these posts let me get this right-basically we won’t know when the end of the world will be so all these predictions are to be ignored correct? Just wanted it put in lay terms.

 

[Izdaari]

oh my goodness so much information out there.

I don’t know if you heard about the “Mayan Calendar” where apparently the world is supposed to end in 2012 of May. I always wanted to find out what Christians believe in as far as the Rapture.

So as I skimmed through some of these posts let me get this right-basically we won’t know when the end of the world will be so all these predictions are to be ignored correct? Just wanted it put in lay terms.

Right. We don’t know when. Jesus is coming back, yeah, but even He said He didn’t know when, but that only the Father knows. Well, if Jesus doesn’t know, for sure we don’t.

All the same, if events in the world start lining up unmistakably with prophecy (i.e., the Temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt, and someone makes a 7-year peace treaty with Israel, etc.), I’ll pay attention.

So far as the Mayan calendar, I’m highly skeptical. I doubt that God would use that to reveal things to us that He didn’t do in the Bible or through the Church.

 

[Telstar]

Right. We don’t know when. Jesus is coming back, yeah, but even He said He didn’t know when, but that only the Father knows. Well, if Jesus doesn’t know, for sure we don’t.

Amen. We shouldn’t worry about any of it, as far as trying to predict exactly when it will happen. It’s totally up to the Father to decide if He ever wants to share that information with anyone else. The only ones that might be worthy of that would be the ‘two witnesses’ that will come to bear testimony near the end of time (Enoch & Elijah). But, I tend to believe that their identity will be fairly obvious to all those that remain faithful, and they will be preaching against the embodiment of the AntiChrist and his horde.

All the same, if events in the world start lining up unmistakably with prophecy (i.e., the Temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt, and someone makes a 7-year peace treaty with Israel, etc.), I’ll pay attention.

I’m with you. The only thing that I’m not so sure about is the belief that the Jewish Temple will ever be rebuilt in Jerusalem. I think those references to the “Temple” are either those specifically concerning the Resurrection of Jesus (“Matthew 26:[61] And they said: This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to rebuild it.”), or to the Church that Jesus established and built on Peter, that would replace the Temple of the Old Testament.

So far as the Mayan calendar, I’m highly skeptical. I doubt that God would use that to reveal things to us that He didn’t do in the Bible or through the Church.

It’s always possible that there may turn out to be some strange connection or coincidence related to that, but I certainly won’t be holding my breath on 12-21-12, any more than I did on 12-31-1999.

 

[Miriam1947]

I am right now on a thread in another forum with Rapture believers and it is unbelievable how hateful they are to those of us who do not buy into the Darby theory of the end times.

Being a Catholic there is a lesson in suffering.

 

[JustaServant]

I don’t know if you heard about the “Mayan Calendar” where apparently the world is supposed to end in 2012 of May.

Archeologists misinterpreted that calander. The calender writer didn’t mean to say the world would end in 2012, but his shift ended at twenty to twelve.

 

[Miriam1947]

Archeologists misinterpreted that calander. The calender writer didn’t mean to say the world would end in 2012, but his shift ended at twenty to twelve.

Very funny. But seriously, perhaps to the Mayans 2012 was an impossible number to believe. Who knew we would actually live to the 2000s? Never crossed my mind.

Of all the things I miss, I miss my mind the most.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Right. We don’t know when. Jesus is coming back, yeah, but even He said He didn’t know when, but that only the Father knows. Well, if Jesus doesn’t know, for sure we don’t.

If you read Matt 24and you see Jesus refering to all the events leading up to His second comming and rhen to think that Jesus did not know the time of His return, is not being realistic. But then you might say how about Matt 24:36But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

This is quite easily explained if you understand just how they understood the word “know”. Look at 1Cor.2:2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Paul is saying here, when he says he will not “know” anything save Jesus Christ and Him crucified, that he will not preach or announce anything to the Corinthians save Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If we take this understanding and apply it to Matt. 24:36 we see that no man or angel will announce the second comming, but only the Father. And in Rev. 14 we see this scenario being played out.

Rev.14
14And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
15And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
16And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.

Here we see Jesus on His cloud with His sickle awaiting the time of reaping, when an angel comes out of the temple, the place where the Father abides, and tells the"one sat like unto the Son of man" to “Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.” So we have the Father announcing the time of the harvest.

All the same, if events in the world start lining up unmistakably with prophecy (i.e., the Temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt, and someone makes a 7-year peace treaty with Israel, etc.), I’ll pay attention.

Where do you see these things prophecied in scripture? (i.e., the Temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt, and someone makes a 7-year peace treaty with Israel, etc.),

So far as the Mayan calendar, I’m highly skeptical. I doubt that God would use that to reveal things to us that He didn’t do in the Bible or through the Church.

Me too.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I don’t know if you heard about the “Mayan Calendar” where apparently the world is supposed to end in 2012 of May.

This.

 

[CopticChristian]

I am right now on a thread in another forum with Rapture believers and it is unbelievable how hateful they are to those of us who do not buy into the Darby theory of the end times.

Being a Catholic there is a lesson in suffering.

I would delight in knowing where this is so that I may partake of your discovery.

 

[Telstar]

I would delight in knowing where this is so that I may partake of your discovery.

I wonder how long it would take for everyone that followed to get banned by their Mods.

 

[skonopka]

How popular is this believe now? Was it mostly just a fad while the Left Behind series was popular. Is/was it mostly limited to the US?

Dispensationalism is primarily an American phenomenon. European Christians just scratch their heads when they see our end time preachers applying OT and Revelation prophesies to current events…the two main problems with Dispensationalism and its literalism are 1) that inspired NT writers interpreted the OT, too…and were not literalists or Dispensationalists at all and 2) Dispensationalists ultimately count the words of Christ as being essentially irrelevant to us today–since it is, supposedly, for the “Jew” at a future time.

 

[CopticChristian]

Dispensationalism is primarily an American phenomenon. European Christians just scratch their heads when they see our end time preachers applying OT and Revelation prophesies to current events…the two main problems with Dispensationalism and its literalism are 1) that inspired NT writers interpreted the OT, too…and were not literalists or Dispensationalists at all and 2) Dispensationalists ultimately count the words of Christ as being essentially irrelevant to us today–since it is, supposedly, for the “Jew” at a future time.

Try these links. You can always count on other Protestants to comment on their own destruction of doctrine.

THE OBITUARY OF DISPENSATIONALISM:
1830-1988
Vic Reasoner

fwponline.cc/v9n1/v9n1reasoner.html

ANTI-DISPENSATIONALIST
AND CHRISTIAN ZIONIST MATERIALS

The Armageddon Lobby

preteristarchive.com/dEmEnTiA/index.html

WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO SCOFIELD’S DISPENSATIONALISM?
by Ga/y North

garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/dt/9512.pdf

Dispensationalist Christian Zionism and the Shaping of US Policy Towards Israel-Palestine

By Rammy M. Haija

informationclearinghouse.info/article15422.htm