This comment has caused me to dig deeper and deal with more. So, having done some of that with yesterdays post, still I want to delve into a additional part of Tony’s statement quoted in yesterdays article. Where he says:
“Thus, the uniqueness of the Church as the body of Christ ministering in His absence consisting only of those baptized by the Spirit is unappreciated and the doctrine of a separate rapture of the bride of Christ is predictably rejected and even ridiculed as unscriptural (1Cor. 15:51-52; 1Th. 4:17). (Many, although not all, Pentecostal congregations embrace Covenant Theology…”
When considering this portion of Tony’s reason for his criticism, first placing everyone as one cannot mean what he states here. One body in Christ is obviously one body ministering in the Spirit. Further it becomes obvious in his criticism that his greatest concern is over the pre-Trib Rapture timing, which is today under attack, because this timing is very difficult to prove using the literal scriptural interpretation that Dispensationalists advocate for, and, which one must base one’s doctrine upon. I will use the following critique to attempt to make my point.
Dr. Paul Henebury at my request commented on my original post of Dec. 2018, which I reposted with edits yesterday following his critique. And based on that comment of his, I did add some additional scripture and comment to the original argument for support of what scripture is, I believe, clearly stating. Following were his comments:
I highlighted his objection in the above. You will need to be the judge of whether or not I was able to accomplish in yesterdays post what he criticizes me for not in the original having accomplished. I placed this here to credit him with my attempt to make clear what he felt weak. But I do want to deal further with one of his comments.
But before I do that I want to return to Tony’s quote. If we consider what is obviously important to Tony based on his reason that he gives in his above quote, then, we must conclude that it is the pre-Trib Rapture, that he defends. His best proof of that Rapture is included with his quote. I say his best proof, because these are the scriptures that he posted with the quote from his article. If I’m going to tell you that something is true based upon scripture, I’m going to do the best that I can to prove it with the scriptures that say best what I think the scriptures teach. Following are his rapture scriptures:
(1Cor. 15:51-52; 1Th. 4:17)
Neither of these passages tell us that this rapture is before the Tribulation as Tony contends. Both do tell us that rapture is after the resurrection, the significance of which is made convoluted by Dispensationalists. And the Thessalonian passage tells us that Rapture occurs at Christ’s coming. Further the Corinthian passage tells us that Rapture is at the last Trumpet. The last Trumpet in Revelation, which brings an end to man’s history in the age immediately before Christs coming is easily identified with the next coming of Christ, where He comes with His rewards. And there is nothing in scripture which literally tells us that there will be a second and a third coming of Christ, which is a pre-Trib Rapture requirement. So these passages given for a pre-Trib support are only proof of the rapture itself, which from the passages themselves is most likely post not pre.
So now I need to return to Dr Henebury in order to challenge what he states at the end of his above critique. This is at least his initial thought on Paul’s “one new man” concept.
So let’s look at the passage:
Ephesians 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; (KJV)
Post Christ resurrection it is Dr, and to be fair I don’t know if that is what you meant or not. You could, I guess, mean our resurrection, so does your point eliminate man pre Christ and pre His resurrection?
So in Vs 14 Paul says that He hath made both one, speaking of Jew and Gentile. The these is past — “hath done this”. In verse 15 again we are in the past tense having abolished…for to make in Himself of the two one new man. But there is an additional statement: “so making peace”. This is not post our resurrection; it’s intent is now. It is post Christ’s resurrection that this joining of Jew and Gentile took place. We believers are the greatest supporters of the Jews today, and we as Paul did, do pray for their salvation “in Christ”. So nothing makes us think that this oneness is not now in existence, with an eternal purpose? Sorry Dr Henebury, but I’m not sure I get your point on the one new man, because Christ after being in paradise, which contained all of His people from the time of Adam, then He himself entered Paradise after the cross, and preached, and then led captivity formerly in Paradise captive with Him to heaven. This was all outlined in yesterdays post.
Please help me understand your objection if you believe me to be still off base.