Bible Scavenger Hunt

Mitchell

> @C_M_ said:
> Mitchell,
> I am not inclined to agree with you and Mr. Reformed on your points above.

what exactly are my ‘points’ that you disagree with? So for the theology you addressed in your most recent post have absolutely nothing to do my understanding of the scriptures. So, I am a little puzzled as to what plural points of mine you are disagreeing with?

C Mc

@Mitchell said: Very well said and I think that could be extended to apply to a whole lot more than end time theology. In my opinion, way too much division in the Church has been caused because of different beliefs regarding the nonessentials of faith.
@Mitchell said: what exactly are my ‘points’ that you disagree with? So for the theology you addressed in your most recent post have absolutely nothing to do my understanding of the scriptures. So, I am a little puzzled as to what plural points of mine you are disagreeing with?

Mitch, in short:

"... In my opinion, way too much division in the Church has been caused because of different beliefs regarding the nonessentials of faith".

If the above statement is in reference to Dispensationalism. If not, I stand to be corrected. At the same time, my post remains, independent of your statement. No shame. However, If you like to unpack your statement above, it would be helpful to all. Thanks for your response. CM

[Deleted User]

@reformed said:

Is the rapture something as assumed by many Christians (sort of like was expressed by bumper stickers years ago which read "Careful, at the rapture this vehicle will be without a driver") ? or something else perhaps?

I stand beside the Scriptures I put forth. One will remain standing while the other vanishes.

Do you not realize that your scripture verses each refer to events in a specific context and should therefore be understood in the respective context?

Do you think that a context speaking of bicycles having wheels and another context speaking of trucks having wheels should be "combined" into stating that bicycles are trucks because they both are said to have wheels?

If that were to happen in modern day, what do you think would happen? OBVIOUSLY cars without drivers etc...

Your "if" is indicating the crux of the matter ... none of the contexts of your mentioned scriptures speak of "modern day", thus your "if"-statement is irrelevant.

C Mc

@reformed said:
@C_M_ said: CM said: The fulfillment of the seventieth week of Daniel's 70-week prophecy is still future. It is based on unbiblical presuppositions. The Rapture Theory has captured the imagination of millions of sincere Christians is contrary to the Bible's teaching.
If you disagree with this, make your case, I am opened to learn. CM

@reformed said: It's been done multiple times on this forum.
Matt 24:30-31
1 Cor. 15:51-53
1 Thessalonians 4:16-18
Luke 17:34-37
Mark 13:24-27

Mr. Reformed,
Thanks for the familiar texts. I will review them in light of your position. In the meanwhile, would you be so kind to answer the following questions to the best of your ability?

1. How do you define “rapture”? It’s doesn’t have to be an original. Share one that reflects your belief or comes close to it. Better yet, illustrate it.
2. Where has the rapture been proven “multiple times on this forum”?
3. You are aware that “a text without a context is a pretext"?
4. Do you teach rapturism to anyone or a group?
5. Is rapturism something evolving with you?
6. Do you want to reconsider the stance that the Bible supports, the “rapture”, however, you define it?
7. Do you consider the rapture doctrine to be one of the “nonessentials of faith”?
8. Is the rapture an end time uncertainty?
9. Can you say when and where this rapture will take place?
10. Who will be raptured?

These questions are not to make you uncomfortable in any way. They’re only to seek clarification of your faith or belief on the subject matter. Your consideration would be appreciated. CM

reformed

@C_M_ said:

@reformed said:
@C_M_ said: CM said: The fulfillment of the seventieth week of Daniel's 70-week prophecy is still future. It is based on unbiblical presuppositions. The Rapture Theory has captured the imagination of millions of sincere Christians is contrary to the Bible's teaching.
If you disagree with this, make your case, I am opened to learn. CM

@reformed said: It's been done multiple times on this forum.
Matt 24:30-31
1 Cor. 15:51-53
1 Thessalonians 4:16-18
Luke 17:34-37
Mark 13:24-27

Mr. Reformed,
Thanks for the familiar texts. I will review them in light of your position. In the meanwhile, would you be so kind to answer the following questions to the best of your ability?

1. How do you define “rapture”? It’s doesn’t have to be an original. Share one that reflects your belief or comes close to it. Better yet, illustrate it.

When Jesus takes His church. They are caught up in the sky with him in the twinkling of an eye.

2. Where has the rapture been proven “multiple times on this forum”?

Look it up.

3. You are aware that “a text without a context is a pretext"?

Yep

4. Do you teach rapturism to anyone or a group?

How is that relevant? But yes.

5. Is rapturism something evolving with you?

No

6. Do you want to reconsider the stance that the Bible supports, the “rapture”, however, you define it?

No

7. Do you consider the rapture doctrine to be one of the “nonessentials of faith”?

Yes

8. Is the rapture an end time uncertainty?

The rapture itself, no. Timelines? Yes.

9. Can you say when and where this rapture will take place?

No, only the Father knows.

10. Who will be raptured?

The elect.

These questions are not to make you uncomfortable in any way. They’re only to seek clarification of your faith or belief on the subject matter. Your consideration would be appreciated. CM

It's been considered, though some of them are irrelevant.

Mitchell

@C_M_ said:
If the above statement is in reference to Dispensationalism.

To provide for a little context please notice 2nd page of this thread where I briefly answered the OP's questions that started this thread if you have not done so already.
Now, are the answers given those of a Dispensationalist?

Next, notice my comment to the user Reformed. First My praise was to the wording of Reformed's statement not to Dispensationalist theology. Notice I stated: "very well said" the way in which Reformed made his statement was 'well' or 'good' in my opinion. Then my next statement I spoke of division in the church being started because of different beliefs (not all different beliefs are Dispensationalist beliefs!) and because of non-essentials of faith i.e. things that are not clearly stated in Scripture.

Where, I live less than one percent of the population claims to be Christians, and partly because of that most Christians/Churches here attempt to work together and to look past non-essentials of faith (not all Churches of course). Durning W2 the government attempted to limit the number of denominations and on June 24, 1941 forced 33 denominations to combine into one new denomination or Christian association. I think that was a mistake and a bad decision. However, this colors my vision and I still believe there is too much division in the Church worldwide over a lot of different things and theologies.

C Mc

Thanks, Mitch, understood. Blessings. CM