Basically the idea is that every scholar and clued in bible reader understands that when we read the Gospel accounts, we combine them. Every gospel is slightly different, yes? But…just like police would expect witness statements to be different and not identical, the FACT that the gospel accounts are slightly different actually gives them more credibility for being truthful.
Knowing that, when we read them, we combine the different retelling of certain events to gain a…more full…picture of what might have happened.
Right! Now there is an entirely different discussion. The Gospels form their own genre of literature unduplicated anywhere. These are the Good News of Jesus Christ, four books written with the purpose of showing our Savior, so we can be saved. There is nothing else like them in the world.
Of course the 3 synoptic Gospels, as they are called. Only one claims to set the events in order, I think, being Luke. John's Gospel is 7 miracles, 7 sermons, I forget how it lays out at the moment, but I don't think his intent was to put everything in sequence. Over half his Gospel is Jesus' final days. "This is written so that you will believe", not to show the calender entries of Jesus' ministry.
My point with the ‘separating’ was, that instead of applying similar methodology to all the references to Christ’s return, Dispensationalist separate them into two events….
And I have not yet heard a satisfactory reason as to why they must read it this way. I know, as a Dispensationalist you would say that the text requires you to read it that way, but I disagree.
I believe in looking at each for what it says. I find each of us have different levels of tolerance for perceived conflicts. This word or that word is used. They are different words, are they intended to say the same thing in different ways, or to say two different things? Some say the opening of the seals show the same things as the pouring of the bowls, and other say they are different. Some compare similarities and others look at the differences.
In showing the rapture contrasted to the gathering of the Jews, I find the text reads that way. To me there isn't any kind of mental gymnastics, but for me, there is an awful lot I think I'd have to ignore to see the rapture of the church in the gathering of the elect when Jesus.
One Gospel says there was 1 man living in the tombs in the Gaderenes, another Gospel says there were two men living in the tombs. So we know there were two, because you can have one, and also another, but you cannot have 1 but not another, while still having 2.
The Gospel says that Jesus sends His angels to gather His chosen, and then that the nations are gathered, including righteous and unrighteous. Where is the church there? In the gathering of the chosen? Or gathering of the righteous and unrighteous gentiles? If in the chosen, then how do you have righteous gentiles? If in the righteous gentiles, why are the declared based on works?
And considering the OT has specific prophecies of this very thing, showing Israel being regathered, then the Gentiles gathered to be judged, how am I not just following what the Bible says?
I’ll give you two examples that I hear frequently from Dispensationalists for ‘separating’ the returns that I find unconvincing. The first is “the first time Jesus comes in the clouds and the second time his feet touch down”.
I don't speak this way myself. But I think this is more just trying to be descriptive of their view.
The second example I find unconvincing is “the first time Jesus comes FOR his bride, the second time he comes WITH his bride”. The idea here being that some verses that speak of Christ’s return describe an army in white behind him. Dispensationalists claim these are the previously raptured church members.
I find this reason to separate the events lacking because….do we NEED a rapture for Christ to have an army of faithful? We’ve had all of history, but especially the last 2000 years where Christians have died and gone to be with Christ. We KNOW they’re already there, waiting to return with him and then receive their new bodies. So why would we need to force into the text that the church must be raptured pre-trib for this to be fulfilled? Biblically…it doesn’t.
Again, to me, this is more descriptive of their view, rather than giving the Biblical reasons for it.
The armies of heaven could be angels, or angels and men, or . . . Personally I think there is good cause to think men and angels come from heaven with Jesus, but I'd want to get to specific passages.
The kinds of dispensational arguments I more hear, and consider, give particular passages and show how they relate to other passages.
My point being, Dispensationalists tend to read into the text what they want to see in order to support two second comings.
Well, I disagree. I think just anyone can and does do this. Myself, I've found the other rapture views to be irreconcilable to the Scriptures.
And I think if we’re being honest about the texts in question, and the exegetical approach in reading them…then we must question those interpretations.
We need to look at specific passages, at which time, if we will follow through the discussion, we will find which words we do not regard the same.
Much love!