My point is that the resurrection precedes the "rapture". The last day will see the resurrection of the unjust as well; they won't be the ones meeting the Lord in the air like those in Christ, of course. I'm not arguing that the ungodly will be "raptured" along with those in Christ.
Views on the millennium don't constitute heresy by themselves. Views on the rapture only vary in dispensationalism. I consider dispensationalism itself heresy for the reasons I stated in the Gap thread. All non-dispensational systems (or lack of systems) would be considered post-trib, tho there is much more that can be said about that.
@Steve: I agree with that to an extent. The Second Coming will be the biggest day, but it will be the consummation of what Jesus made possible on the cross. The glorious return of our Lord and Saviour, the utter defeat of satan, the judgment, destruction of the Earth, and the recreation of everything into a New Heaven and New Earth (if there's differing opinions on whether the NH&NE will be a totally separate creation, we can start another thread on that; let's not discuss it here) would all have been impossible if not for the cross. That is why the cross is the CENTRAL event in history. Though the second coming will be the biggest day we see, there was none spiritually as massive as the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. It was then that Jesus conquered death by death. It was then that He defeated the devil and the power of sin. Though He did not remove the presence of sin altogether, He secured its fate by His death and resurrection.
Most importantly, it is the cross in which God's glory in justice was most revealed. What was the destruction coming that we were saved from? It was the wrath of God, not the devil. Were God of a different nature, He could have dismissed our sin without the cross. Yet He did not because He is bound to His perfect character. Justice demands death for sin. But what defines justice and what defines God's perfect character? Is it not God? and if He defines it, does He do so passively by His essence, as we define some things by our essence and other things actively by thinking, or does God actively define even His own very essence, being the only being free to do so? So it is God who appointed the price of our redemption, and what a price it was! God had to die for sinners to be saved. In this we see that the cross was far more about God than it was about us. It was for more a display of His glory in justice than merely a means to save us, though it was not any less that.
(If the second paragraph didn't make sense, still read the third)
So the Second Coming will be big indeed, but it is no miracle that Jesus will come to judge, destroy, create, and reign. It will show His awesome power for the world to see, but the miracle that God would die for us and then rise again is far greater. On the last day, it will be a glorious day, as we will be saved from the effects and presence of sin and death, yet for all eternity we will marvel at the cross and that our God should die for us. The holes in His hands, feet, and side will be there for all eternity. And it is only through the cross that the Second Coming will be as glorious to us as it will be. To those who do not trust the Lord Jesus Christ, it will be a day of doom, darkness, and destruction.
Dispensationalism diminishes that by making the cross plan B, by suggesting that salvation could be attained by man in other dispensations apart from the cross of Jesus, by looking to a future redemption (not from their sin and the wrath of God, but merely physical oppression) of national Israel and by stating that plan A shall be resumed which is nothing more than a mere millennium of Jews living in physical Israel while achieving righteousness by no more than animal sacrifices and keeping of the law. That, my friends, is heresy.
In dispensationalism, the cross is not a big enough event to account for the messiah being cut off in the midst of the 70th week..any teaching that degrades what Jesus did as the burning center of the bible and all prophesy is heresy..yes, dispensationalism degrades the cross to a plan b which is not even prophesied about in the OT..if the 70th week is future then so is the messiah being cut off..therefore the cross is a side thing in God's plan, not the real deal..absolute heresy
Is it OK to quote the Russian Synodal Translation (Masoratic/Textus Receptus based) on this particular verse or is the RST inferior though based on the same text? This is one of those verses where the RST has a different reading from the KJV.
@Rick: Have you thought of the possibility that the time of the Jews is over and so are the 70 weeks, since they brought about their purpose, which is the gospel to all nations, but that Romans 9 and 11 talk about God still having a purpose for them as well? You don't have to be a dispensationalist to believe Romans 9 and 11 and that the 70 weeks are up. I personally believe that where Romans 9 and 11 is talking about ethnic Jews, it is talking about individual Jews being added to the church in the gospel age. However, I know people on the covenantal side who believe it is talking about the remnant of the Jewish nation as a whole being being saved at Jesus' second coming as dispensationalists believe, sans the pretrib church rapture. Just to throw that out there. The delay of the 70th week is not necessary to believe Romans 9 and 11 or to even interpret those chapters the way you do. I think this is what John81 maybe talking about.
I can imagine dispensationalists interpreting our words a few hundred years (should the world last that long) in the future and stumbling over all our figures of speech and idioms.. it will keep them busy for sure. :)
Sorry, Ian, only dispensationalists are alowed to do that. We are to interpret the Bible as we read it. No natural gaps, like between Isaac's birth and his birthday party when he was done being nursed. Those happened several seconds apart because you can read the passage in several seconds. However, in the dispensational scheme of things, Isaac's celebration may have been several thousand years after his birth. ;)
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? - Romans 10:14-15a
Growing up multilingual and reading the Bible in several languages fluently and in several others not fluently just doesn't let me believe there is one perfect version. Because every version I read had some parts closer to the manuscripts they were translated from (the first Bibles I ever read were all TR based) and made more sense than the others. I wonder if I chose to grow up in a Slavic family in America by my own free will. It kind of ruined it for me on the KJVO issue. I'm still KJVP though. So far nobody has explained to me why the KJV is superior to other TR-based translations in other languages even in the verses that make more sense in those translations than the KJV. I'd be happy to hear why.
I don't know everything about eschatology, so I don't have much of an opinion on the eagles at this point. I am something of a partial-preterist/historicist blend, but I don't know what my label is supposed to be exactly. I don't really care for labels. I want to know what the Bible teaches and I don't care what others call it. Ian believes the eagles are Romans. I don't know. All I know is that I don't see any gaps in God's word. I study what is written in the Bible, not what is in between punctuation marks. Dispensationalism is all about reading between the lines. I'm talking in general; you are accusing me of specific things which I don't even know about yet.
@Rick: I've said many times that the King James is the best translation I have come across, but it is not perfect, and that is why I use other versions and a little Greek as a supplement. I don't know who "packs around" any corrupt version. I am fully aware of the problems with many versions, but I do not practice "do not touch" rules. Paul said not to. I always quote the King James on this board anyway so I don't get what's the problem.
@2Tim215: We were accused of being pagan fatalists first because we rejected plan B theology. I didn't even mention Calvinism in this thread until this post. I then brought up the fact that pagans are usually far more about free will than fatalism. Fatalism is usually more on the deistic or atheistic side than polytheistic paganism.
Back to the topic. Since when did Bible teaching become about studying what isn't written rather than what is? It's sad and I believe shows distrust for God. God gave us His word for us to believe and know He is true and we can trust Him. Reading between the lines is something you do when you don't trust a person. You try to find the hidden meaning of his words. How can we treat God that way?
They are right on one thing: it is man's natural free choice to serve self over God. To them (a) God is just a tool to serve self. What is more sad is when some Christians treat God the same way. They are lost when they think they are not.