THE PRE-TRIB RAPTURE DOES NOT FIT LAST DAYS PROPHECY ABOUT NOAH
- Thread starter DP
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The Babylon harlot "great city" of Revelation is shown in this verse...
Rev 11:7-8
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
KJV
Rev 11:7-8
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
KJV
In the end of days, i.e., the "great tribulation" timing Jesus mentioned in Matt.24, there won't be any such 'embodying' of Satan into some flesh man. The Devil himself in living color is coming to this earth in OUR dimension, to play Christ!
I can't make it any more plain than that. Even Satan is disguised as an angel of light, Apostle Paul said (2 Cor.11; see also Matt.24:23-26; Rev.13:11-17; 2 Thess.2:3-8).
I can't make it any more plain than that. Even Satan is disguised as an angel of light, Apostle Paul said (2 Cor.11; see also Matt.24:23-26; Rev.13:11-17; 2 Thess.2:3-8).
P
Post tribs pull that Darby mess like a six gun.
Extra biblical rabbit trail.
There are lots of pretrib rapture verses.
Guess what?
THERE IS NOT ONE POSTRIB RAPTURE VERSE.
THAT IS WHY THEY MAKE THE TWO SEPARATE EVENTS INTO ONE.
Even if you are right historically(which you are not),you would then need a HISTORIC RECORD OF INFALLIBILITY,(which you do not).
They had erroneous beliefs. So why are you looking to dead men for your foundation?
IOW,if "first doctrine believed" is our hope and stand,WE ALL NEED TO CONVERT TO CATHOLICISM.
Extra biblical rabbit trail.
There are lots of pretrib rapture verses.
Guess what?
THERE IS NOT ONE POSTRIB RAPTURE VERSE.
THAT IS WHY THEY MAKE THE TWO SEPARATE EVENTS INTO ONE.
Even if you are right historically(which you are not),you would then need a HISTORIC RECORD OF INFALLIBILITY,(which you do not).
They had erroneous beliefs. So why are you looking to dead men for your foundation?
IOW,if "first doctrine believed" is our hope and stand,WE ALL NEED TO CONVERT TO CATHOLICISM.
If you have them time, you might enjoy this man's verse by verse teaching on Revelation:http://www.thenarrowpath.com/verse_by_verse.php#Revelation
M
I like that analogy, but I'm not sure how that fits with Revelation 11:8-12...
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
Hey abcdef,
First, I personally don't believe that Moses will be one of the two witnesses and that because Moses died and was buried and has not yet been resurrected and that because scripture states that Jesus was the first fruits of those who have died and resurrected. And if Moses was resurrected, it would mean that he would die twice and resurrect twice. Elijah on the other hand has not died, neither has Enoch. These two would be better candidates in opinion. Also, the two witnesses are not currently speaking in Israeel, as the two witnesses will not start their time of prophecy until the beginning of the seven years where they will both be killed in the middle of the seven years by the beast that comes up out of the Abyss at the 5th trumpet.
First, I personally don't believe that Moses will be one of the two witnesses and that because Moses died and was buried and has not yet been resurrected and that because scripture states that Jesus was the first fruits of those who have died and resurrected. And if Moses was resurrected, it would mean that he would die twice and resurrect twice. Elijah on the other hand has not died, neither has Enoch. These two would be better candidates in opinion. Also, the two witnesses are not currently speaking in Israeel, as the two witnesses will not start their time of prophecy until the beginning of the seven years where they will both be killed in the middle of the seven years by the beast that comes up out of the Abyss at the 5th trumpet.
it shadows Jesus and shows us how God operates. We can learn from the examples of people and circumstances in the Old Testament (not seeking to be placed back under the law)
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]PART ONE[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]For those who are humbly seeking the truth of these things, I humbly offer some further information I have accumulated. I make no claims about being right. The following is some information and random thoughts I have had about the matter.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]I wrote most of this 25-30 years ago so there is room for revision, but the quotes lead me to my current position. I am willing to reconsider given addition information.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]I earnestly encourage those who disagree to provide documentation supporting your position. If and where I am incorrect, I ask for help in coming to a knowledge and understanding of the truth.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]If any of the following is true, is the reader willing to accept it? If any parts of the following are not true, will the reader be kind enough to clarify that point, please?[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Certain things can be looked for that would support the early church believing in a pre-tribulation rapture, or even Dispensationalism in general.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"1) Any mention that Christ's second coming was to consist of more than one phase, separated by an interval of years, [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]2) Any mention that Christ was to remove the church from the earth before the tribulation period, 3) Any reference to the resurrection of the just as being in two stages,[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]4) Any indication that Israel and the church were to be clearly distinguished, thus providing some rationale for a removal of Christians before God "again deals with Israel". [Bell, p 26-7][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"A careful survey, then, of the Ante-Nicene fathers produces not a single writer who expects to be raptured before the tribulation period begins, nor who sees the second coming of Christ to be a dual event, separated by some years, nor who sees the resurrection of the righteous dead at any time other than at Christ's glorious second advent. Indeed, those who mention these matters specifically expect to endure the tribulation period and meet the Lord thereafter." [Bell, p 36][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"It has now been demonstrated that pretribulationism and Dispensationalism are not to be found in the annals of the early church. So weighty and conclusive is the evidence that some leading pretribulational scholars, in recent years, have reluctantly admitted that historic premillennialism did not distinguish between Israel and the church. [Bell p 48][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]It is concluded, then, that pretribulationism and the concomitant [resulting] dispensationalism are not to be found in the writings of the early church fathers -- either explicitly or implicitly. The evidence may be summarized briefly as follows:[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](1) Every writer who deals with the subject in any specific way is posttribulational.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](2) No writer sees a dual coming of Christ in prospect.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](3) No writer expresses an expectation of physical removal from the earth before the tribulation period. Rather, the general eschatological theme involves exhortations to stand steadfast in the present (or coming) distress.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](4) No writer expresses astonishment or dismay at being (as was supposed) in the tribulation period, although this reaction would be almost certain if some had expected a prior rapture and thus had been sorely disappointed.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](5) No writer distinguishes between Israel and the church in the dispensational manner, and thus none could be pretribulationists in any rational or logical sense, by admission of leading pretribulationists.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](6) The question of immanency and its relationship to post-tribulationism cannot be explained satisfactorily by any pretribulational hypothesis, since confusion and misunderstanding must be attributed to the writers. Post-tribulationism, on the other hand, provides a framework in which the data can be accounted for, i.e. immanency as a function of a contemporaneous tribulation period. [Bell p 55-56][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"Although Christian writers in succeeding generations frequently differed from one another in their understanding of certain of the details involved in this expected coming, there was one point which admitted no argument -- Jesus Christ was to return to the earth only once more. The unity of the event was assumed to be beyond question and seemingly was taken for granted by all Christians who wrote on the subject." [Bell, p1-2][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Many pre-tribulationists attempt to support their opinion by laying claim to an historic belief in "immanency", that is, that the hope of the church has been that Messiah Jesus could come back at any moment. Several have attempted to develop such historical justification, but an honest investigation into the sources and arguments refutes their claim.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The Didache (A.D. 120) contains the exhortation, "Watch for your life's sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ye ready, for ye know not the hour in which our Lord cometh." It would seem[Emphasis mine.]from this quotation that the coming of the Lord is considered as possible in any hour, indicating belief in the immanency of the Lord's return. [Walvoord 1957 1974, p.53-4][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"The central feature of pretribulationism, the doctrine of immanency, is, however, a prominent feature of the doctrine of the early church. Without facing all the problems that the doctrine of immanency raises, such as its relation to the Tribulation, [Emphasis mine.] the early church lived in constant expectation of the Coming of the Lord for His church. [Walvoord, p.51]"[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The problem Walvoord "does not want to face" in this quote is that the church fathers believed that the church would go through the Great Tribulation and also that Jesus could come back at any time. He does not want to "face this problem" because he cannot afford to admit the resolution to the problem.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Granted, some early church fathers do take the position that Christ could return at any moment, but that does not make them pre-tribulational like Walvoord tries to claim. The reason that certain church fathers believed that Christ could come back at any moment was because they thought they were already in the Great Tribulation. [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"This explanation also explains why some of the early fathers were posttribulational and believed in immanency, while others were likewise posttribulational but did not believe in immanency. Those who thought that they were in the tribulation believed in immanency; those who viewed the tribulation as yet future (even though near, perhaps) did not believe in immanency." [Bell p54 - Carlsson, p119-24][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Does Dr. Walvoord deny that the historical position of the church has been post-tribulational? No, he admits it. But he also says that anyone who disagrees with his pre-tribulation rapture idea, including the early church fathers, is as guilty of heresy as were the false teachers in 2 Thes 2.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The general impression one receives from reading the early church fathers is that they followed a posttribulational interpretation similar to the false teachers whom Paul rebuked in 2 Thessalonians 2, ...[Walvoord, p.52][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]He arbitrarily condemns the post-tribulational position of the early church fathers as being "similar to the false teachers Paul whom rebuked", even though there is no evidence whatever that the false teachers Paul was referring to held a post-tribulational position. He assumes his pre-tribulation opinion is divine truth and that gives him the authority to condemn anything else as a false teaching, including the beliefs of the early church fathers.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Let's briefly look at 2 Thes 2 to see if it appears to be pre or post tribulational.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]2 Thes 2:1-5 (NIV) Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. [Emphasis mine.] 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]In verse 1 Paul clearly states what he is talking about - the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to Him. In verse 2 he admonishes the Thessolonians to not believe anyone who says Christ's return has already happened. In verse 3 Paul says never let anyone deceive you about this. Christ's return will not come until the man of lawlessness is revealed. From other passages, we learn that the man of lawlessness is revealed at the beginning of the tribulation. [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Since Christ will not come until the man of lawlessness is revealed and we will be here until Christ's return, we must necessarily be here when the man of sin is revealed, i.e., during the tribulation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]To the average reader this passage seems to prove post tribulationism and disprove pre-tribulationism. Then why did Walvoord slander all post tribulationists by saying they are like the false teachers? If this passage truly is supporting a post tribulational position, isn't Walvoord slandering the Apostle Paul?[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]It would seem that Paul is warning us to not let people deceive us that the return of Christ (and our being gathered to Him) would occur before the "man of sin is revealed", which signifies the beginning of the tribulation. Dispensationalism teaches that the return of Christ happens before the Man of Sin is revealed. Was Paul warning the readers against an early form of the pre-tribulation rapture?[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]After slandering the historic post-tribulational position as being a "false teaching", Walvoord goes on to call the beliefs of the early church fathers "clouded".[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The expectancy of the Lord's coming was clouded, however, by the belief that the events of the Tribulation were impending and that Christ's coming to establish His kingdom was posttribulational. Frequently the same writers who seemed to imply immanency later detailed events that must precede the Rapture and the second coming of Christ. [Walvoord, p.52][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]He judges the early church fathers by his pre-tribulation view and then calls their understanding "clouded" because they didn't support his opinion.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The early church didn't claim to believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, so how could their position be clouded? Of course, their position would look cloudy to one who only allows a pre tribulation position.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The early church believed in a post tribulational resurrection. Walvoord has admitted that. But instead of accepting that they understood what they believed, he says :[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"It is rather the case that the viewpoint of the early church was not detailed and mature." [Walvoord, p55][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Walvoord himself agrees that the majority of the early church writers appear to be post-tribulational, but since they disagree with him, he arbitrarily charges them with heresy, as he did earlier, or immaturity, as he does here.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]For those who are humbly seeking the truth of these things, I humbly offer some further information I have accumulated. I make no claims about being right. The following is some information and random thoughts I have had about the matter.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]I wrote most of this 25-30 years ago so there is room for revision, but the quotes lead me to my current position. I am willing to reconsider given addition information.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]I earnestly encourage those who disagree to provide documentation supporting your position. If and where I am incorrect, I ask for help in coming to a knowledge and understanding of the truth.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]If any of the following is true, is the reader willing to accept it? If any parts of the following are not true, will the reader be kind enough to clarify that point, please?[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Certain things can be looked for that would support the early church believing in a pre-tribulation rapture, or even Dispensationalism in general.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"1) Any mention that Christ's second coming was to consist of more than one phase, separated by an interval of years, [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]2) Any mention that Christ was to remove the church from the earth before the tribulation period, 3) Any reference to the resurrection of the just as being in two stages,[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]4) Any indication that Israel and the church were to be clearly distinguished, thus providing some rationale for a removal of Christians before God "again deals with Israel". [Bell, p 26-7][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"A careful survey, then, of the Ante-Nicene fathers produces not a single writer who expects to be raptured before the tribulation period begins, nor who sees the second coming of Christ to be a dual event, separated by some years, nor who sees the resurrection of the righteous dead at any time other than at Christ's glorious second advent. Indeed, those who mention these matters specifically expect to endure the tribulation period and meet the Lord thereafter." [Bell, p 36][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"It has now been demonstrated that pretribulationism and Dispensationalism are not to be found in the annals of the early church. So weighty and conclusive is the evidence that some leading pretribulational scholars, in recent years, have reluctantly admitted that historic premillennialism did not distinguish between Israel and the church. [Bell p 48][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]It is concluded, then, that pretribulationism and the concomitant [resulting] dispensationalism are not to be found in the writings of the early church fathers -- either explicitly or implicitly. The evidence may be summarized briefly as follows:[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](1) Every writer who deals with the subject in any specific way is posttribulational.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](2) No writer sees a dual coming of Christ in prospect.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](3) No writer expresses an expectation of physical removal from the earth before the tribulation period. Rather, the general eschatological theme involves exhortations to stand steadfast in the present (or coming) distress.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](4) No writer expresses astonishment or dismay at being (as was supposed) in the tribulation period, although this reaction would be almost certain if some had expected a prior rapture and thus had been sorely disappointed.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](5) No writer distinguishes between Israel and the church in the dispensational manner, and thus none could be pretribulationists in any rational or logical sense, by admission of leading pretribulationists.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](6) The question of immanency and its relationship to post-tribulationism cannot be explained satisfactorily by any pretribulational hypothesis, since confusion and misunderstanding must be attributed to the writers. Post-tribulationism, on the other hand, provides a framework in which the data can be accounted for, i.e. immanency as a function of a contemporaneous tribulation period. [Bell p 55-56][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"Although Christian writers in succeeding generations frequently differed from one another in their understanding of certain of the details involved in this expected coming, there was one point which admitted no argument -- Jesus Christ was to return to the earth only once more. The unity of the event was assumed to be beyond question and seemingly was taken for granted by all Christians who wrote on the subject." [Bell, p1-2][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Many pre-tribulationists attempt to support their opinion by laying claim to an historic belief in "immanency", that is, that the hope of the church has been that Messiah Jesus could come back at any moment. Several have attempted to develop such historical justification, but an honest investigation into the sources and arguments refutes their claim.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The Didache (A.D. 120) contains the exhortation, "Watch for your life's sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ye ready, for ye know not the hour in which our Lord cometh." It would seem[Emphasis mine.]from this quotation that the coming of the Lord is considered as possible in any hour, indicating belief in the immanency of the Lord's return. [Walvoord 1957 1974, p.53-4][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"The central feature of pretribulationism, the doctrine of immanency, is, however, a prominent feature of the doctrine of the early church. Without facing all the problems that the doctrine of immanency raises, such as its relation to the Tribulation, [Emphasis mine.] the early church lived in constant expectation of the Coming of the Lord for His church. [Walvoord, p.51]"[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The problem Walvoord "does not want to face" in this quote is that the church fathers believed that the church would go through the Great Tribulation and also that Jesus could come back at any time. He does not want to "face this problem" because he cannot afford to admit the resolution to the problem.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Granted, some early church fathers do take the position that Christ could return at any moment, but that does not make them pre-tribulational like Walvoord tries to claim. The reason that certain church fathers believed that Christ could come back at any moment was because they thought they were already in the Great Tribulation. [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"This explanation also explains why some of the early fathers were posttribulational and believed in immanency, while others were likewise posttribulational but did not believe in immanency. Those who thought that they were in the tribulation believed in immanency; those who viewed the tribulation as yet future (even though near, perhaps) did not believe in immanency." [Bell p54 - Carlsson, p119-24][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Does Dr. Walvoord deny that the historical position of the church has been post-tribulational? No, he admits it. But he also says that anyone who disagrees with his pre-tribulation rapture idea, including the early church fathers, is as guilty of heresy as were the false teachers in 2 Thes 2.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The general impression one receives from reading the early church fathers is that they followed a posttribulational interpretation similar to the false teachers whom Paul rebuked in 2 Thessalonians 2, ...[Walvoord, p.52][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]He arbitrarily condemns the post-tribulational position of the early church fathers as being "similar to the false teachers Paul whom rebuked", even though there is no evidence whatever that the false teachers Paul was referring to held a post-tribulational position. He assumes his pre-tribulation opinion is divine truth and that gives him the authority to condemn anything else as a false teaching, including the beliefs of the early church fathers.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Let's briefly look at 2 Thes 2 to see if it appears to be pre or post tribulational.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]2 Thes 2:1-5 (NIV) Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. [Emphasis mine.] 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]In verse 1 Paul clearly states what he is talking about - the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to Him. In verse 2 he admonishes the Thessolonians to not believe anyone who says Christ's return has already happened. In verse 3 Paul says never let anyone deceive you about this. Christ's return will not come until the man of lawlessness is revealed. From other passages, we learn that the man of lawlessness is revealed at the beginning of the tribulation. [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Since Christ will not come until the man of lawlessness is revealed and we will be here until Christ's return, we must necessarily be here when the man of sin is revealed, i.e., during the tribulation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]To the average reader this passage seems to prove post tribulationism and disprove pre-tribulationism. Then why did Walvoord slander all post tribulationists by saying they are like the false teachers? If this passage truly is supporting a post tribulational position, isn't Walvoord slandering the Apostle Paul?[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]It would seem that Paul is warning us to not let people deceive us that the return of Christ (and our being gathered to Him) would occur before the "man of sin is revealed", which signifies the beginning of the tribulation. Dispensationalism teaches that the return of Christ happens before the Man of Sin is revealed. Was Paul warning the readers against an early form of the pre-tribulation rapture?[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]After slandering the historic post-tribulational position as being a "false teaching", Walvoord goes on to call the beliefs of the early church fathers "clouded".[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The expectancy of the Lord's coming was clouded, however, by the belief that the events of the Tribulation were impending and that Christ's coming to establish His kingdom was posttribulational. Frequently the same writers who seemed to imply immanency later detailed events that must precede the Rapture and the second coming of Christ. [Walvoord, p.52][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]He judges the early church fathers by his pre-tribulation view and then calls their understanding "clouded" because they didn't support his opinion.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The early church didn't claim to believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, so how could their position be clouded? Of course, their position would look cloudy to one who only allows a pre tribulation position.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The early church believed in a post tribulational resurrection. Walvoord has admitted that. But instead of accepting that they understood what they believed, he says :[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"It is rather the case that the viewpoint of the early church was not detailed and mature." [Walvoord, p55][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Walvoord himself agrees that the majority of the early church writers appear to be post-tribulational, but since they disagree with him, he arbitrarily charges them with heresy, as he did earlier, or immaturity, as he does here.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]PART TWO[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]It may be conceded that the advanced and detailed theology of pretribulationism of today is not found in the early church fathers, [Emphasis mine.] [Walvoord, p.50][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif][The assertion] that pretribulationism has been developed and defined to a large extent in recent centuries is true. [Emphasis mine.] [Walvoord, p55][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]To the charge that there is no clear mention of pretribulationism in the early church Walvoord responds:[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]While all of the early fathers are not clear on the question, some of them were posttribulational. Pretribulationists usually concede that none of them taught the precise interpretation of Darby. [Emphasis mine.] [Walvoord, The Rapture Question, p 54][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]However, he still can't resist insulting the early church fathers because they don't agree with him.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]In any event, the thesis that the early fathers were omniscient and once-for-all defined every phase of theology is an unjustified limitation of the Spirit of God to reveal the truth of Scripture to each generation of believers. [Walvoord, p56][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]I doubt any theologian ever considered the early church fathers omniscient. Walvoord is simply trying to evade the positions of the early fathers that contradict his opinion. He implies their post tribulation position could be wrong because they are not "omniscient". But is there any humility on his part that he could be wrong because he is not "omniscient"?[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]He then justifies the fact that pretribulationism is a new teaching by arguing that the Spirit of God has liberty to reveal the truth of Scripture to each generation. This may be true, but one does not deny the historical position of the church simply because someone from a cult church claims the "Spirit of God" brought a new teaching. This is exactly the case with the pre-tribulation rapture. (See the chapter on the origins of the pre-trib rapture.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]It is not generally known, and yet it is an indisputable fact that the doctrine of a pretribulational resurrection and rapture is a modern interpretation -- I am tempted to say, a modern invention. There is not a single proof of such an order of procedure in the Word of God, the two great prophetic passages which deal with the order of events teaching the opposite of this (Matt. 24:27-42; II Thes. 2:1-12). Neither is there any such indication in the patristic writing, all of the church fathers -- so far as they wrote upon the subject -- presenting the fact that the great tribulation was to come and the antichrist was to be revealed before the advent of Christ. This explains why the early disciples thought that the Roman persecutions were the prophesied tribulation and the Roman emperor the antichrist. It also explains why succeeding generations of Christians, when great persecutions arose, came to similar conclusions, Luther, for instance, holding that the persecution of his day was the foretold tribulation and the pope was the antichrist. Throughout the whole of these earlier times, the students of God's Word and current history held the conviction that the divine order was, first, the great tribulation and the antichrist, and afterwards, the second advent of Christ. In fact, it was not until the Irvingite movement stirred England so deeply (from 1822 to 1834), that the doctrine of Christ's advent before the time of the antichrist and the tribulation became a well-known prophetic interpretation; and it was not until the scholarly and godly teacher, Mr. John Nelson Darby (from 1837 to 1882) took up the interpretation and, by word and writing, promulgated it almost the world over that it became generally accepted. The pretribulation resurrection and rapture interpretation became thus a popular doctrine, until now comparatively few premillennial students think otherwise. [Frost, p.203][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Dispensationalists often look for ways to justify their novel opinion with historical documentation, whether or not that documentation is valid. Henry Thiessen does this when he says:[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Though on the whole the testimony of the Fathers is somewhat inconsistent, we seem to have in The Shepherd of Hermas a fairly clear indication of the FACT that there were those who believed that the church would be taken away before that period of judgment begins. [Bell, p29 - Henry C. Thiessen, "Will The Church Pass Through the Tribulation?", Bibliotheca Sacra, 92: 196, Jan-Mar, 1935][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](Notice how he tries to condition the reader to accept his opinion as unconditional fact simply by labeling it fact.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]He employs standard dispensational false logic. He assumes that because they believed in immanency they were pretribulationists. He, like Walvoord, is not interested in what the passage says, only how it can be used to support his theology. He blatantly ignores a later passage in the same work that conclusively disproves his position.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Stand firm, then, you who work righteousness and have singleness of purpose, that your entrance (into heaven) may be in the company of the holy angels. Blessed are you who will endure the great persecution that is to come and who will not deny their life. [Bell, p31 - "The Shepherd of Hermas," Second Vision, Chapter II, p 238, The Fathers of the Church: The Apostolic Fathers, I 254-56][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]It must be concluded, then, that "The Shepherd of Hermas" not only does not teach a pre-tribulation rapture, but actually teaches just the opposite -- that the church is to endure the tribulation, sustained by the grace of God. [Bell, p31-32][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Dispensationalists are not yet prepared to accept fully the fact that the early church was not dispensational. They persist in finding 'dispensational concepts' in the early writers which thus make these writers potential dispensationalists. Or they may assume the identity of premillennialism and dispensationalism and thus attempt to spread the undoubted early historicity of premillennialism over dispensationalism as well." [Bell p43][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Charles Ryrie does this in “The Basis of the Premillennial Faith”.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"Premillennialists [meaning Darby Dispensationalists] believe that Christ will return for His church, meeting her in the air (this is not the second coming of Christ), which event, called the rapture or translation, will usher in a seven-year period of tribulation on the earth. After this, the Lord will return to the earth (this is the Second Coming of Christ) to establish His kingdom on the earth for a thousand years, during which time the promises to Israel will be fulfilled.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Opponents of the premillennial [Darby Dispensational] system have attempted to obscure the main issues involved by inventing distinctions between historical premillennialists, pretribulationists, dispensationalists, and ultra-dispensationalists. Such distinctions are not warranted since the differences involved are so minor and since the roots of premillennialism go far deeper." [Bell p43-44 - from Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, p 12][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Notice in the first paragraph he assumes that only dispensationalists are premillennialists and that there are no premillennialists who are not also dispensationalists. He then charges those who are premillennial but not pretribulational with obscuring the issues and "inventing" distinctions between their historical premillenial position and his (recently invented) Darby dispensationalism.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]He unequivocally states that the church will be translated before the second coming of Christ. He assumes his personal preference to be the standard by which the others are to be compared, and he says that the differences between his opinion and orthodox belief are "minor".[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Ryrie calls the absence of any historic reference to any form of the pretribulational rapture a "straw man" and an "unscholarly approach" that produces "fallacious implications". [Dispensationalism Today , Ryrie, pp 66-67] [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]They are a "straw man" and an "unscholarly approach" and “fallacious”, in his opinion, because they contradict his pre-tribulational rapture theology. I am reminded of the adage, “If you can’t disprove the position, attack the person who holds it.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]One would surmise from the reluctance of pretribulationists to discuss the historical background of the doctrine and from the paucity [scarcity] of citations from the early fathers that the testimony of the early church is unfavorable to their position. Such is indeed the case. Not only does The Shepherd of Hermas teach post-tribulationism, but every other early church father who mentions the subject at all takes the same position. [Bell p 32][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"A careful survey, then, of the Ante-Nicene fathers produces not a single writer who expects to be raptured before the tribulation period begins, nor who sees the second coming of Christ to be a dual event, separated by some years, nor who sees the resurrection of the righteous dead at any time other than at Christ's glorious second advent. Indeed, those who mention these matters specifically expect to endure the tribulation period and meet the Lord thereafter." [Bell, p 36][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]It is concluded, then, that pretribulationism and the concomitant [resulting] dispensationalism are not to be found in the writings of the early church fathers -- either explicitly or implicitly. The evidence may be summarized briefly as follows:[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](1) Every writer who deals with the subject in any specific way is posttribulational.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](2) No writer sees a dual coming of Christ in prospect.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](3) No writer expresses an expectation of physical removal from the earth before the tribulation period. Rather, the general eschatological theme involves exhortations to stand steadfast in the present (or coming) distress.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](4) No writer expresses astonishment or dismay at being (as was supposed) in the tribulation period, although this reaction would be almost certain if some had expected a prior rapture and thus had been sorely disappointed.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](5) No writer distinguishes between Israel and the church in the dispensational manner, and thus none could be pretribulationists in any rational or logical sense, by admission of leading pretribulationists. [Ryrie, DT, 159, cf also Rap. Ques. p19][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif](6) The question of immanency and its relationship to post-tribulationism cannot be explained satisfactorily by any pretribulational hypothesis, since confusion and misunderstanding must be attributed to the writers. Post-tribulationism, on the other hand, provides a framework in which the data can be accounted for, i.e. immanency as a function of a contemporaneous tribulation period. [Bell p 55-56][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]PART THREE[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Definition of Dispensationalism[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The distinction of Dispensationalism is not the dispensations but arguing that the church and Israel are not one body. (Contrary to Paul’s teaching I might add.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct. . . . This is probably the most basic theological test of whether of not a man is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. A man who fails to distinguish Israel and the church will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does, will. [Emphasis mine.] [Dispensationalism Today, 44-45][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Later he says: "The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the church."[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Ryrie refutes the belief that a man is a dispensationalist because he believes in different dispensations in the Bible. He cites Charles Hodge as an example of a theologian who believed in four dispensations after the Fall, but who was a postmillennialist and certainly not a dispensationalist. He concludes: [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]In other words, a man can believe in dispensations, and even see them in relation to progressive revelation, without being a dispensationalist. Is the essence of dispensationalism in the number of dispensations? No, for this is in no way a major issue in the system. [Emphasis mine.] [Dispensationalism Today, p44][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"It has now been demonstrated that pretribulationism and Dispensationalism are not to be found in the annals of the early church. So weighty and conclusive is the evidence that some leading pretribulational scholars, in recent years, have reluctantly admitted that historic premillennialism did not distinguish between Israel and the church:[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]'Historic premillennialism because of its merger of Israel and the church did not have an effective answer [to postmillennialism]. Dispensationalism, clearly distinguishing the program of Israel from the program for the church in the present age, provided content and method to refute postmillennialism and thereby became an ingredient in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy.'" [Bell p 48 - Walvoord, "Review of 'Dispensationalism in America'," Bibliotheca Sacra, 116:164, April, 1959][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"...it should be noted that the basic orientation of the dispensationalist is in error with regard to this problem [Oneness of Old and New Testament believers p94-98]. The New Testament actually speaks not so much of the Old Testament saints being admitted to the church, but of the Gentile believers of the New Testament age being admitted to Israel. The end result is the same -- the Old and New Testament saints comprise a single group, known after Pentecost as the church -- but the orientation is different." [Bell p 102][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]One might also wonder how well pre-tribulationism was represented in the centuries following the early church.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"... it is freely admitted by pretribulationists that no trace of the doctrine is to be found in church history after the Ante- Nicene fathers until the nineteenth century". [Emphasis mine.] [Bell, p27 - from Gerald B. Stanton, "Kept from the Hour", (unpublished doctor's dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1952 p, 315)][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Definition of Dispensationalism[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]The distinction of Dispensationalism is not the dispensations but arguing that the church and Israel are not one body. (Contrary to Paul’s teaching I might add.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct. . . . This is probably the most basic theological test of whether of not a man is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. A man who fails to distinguish Israel and the church will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does, will. [Emphasis mine.] [Dispensationalism Today, 44-45][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Later he says: "The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the church."[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]Ryrie refutes the belief that a man is a dispensationalist because he believes in different dispensations in the Bible. He cites Charles Hodge as an example of a theologian who believed in four dispensations after the Fall, but who was a postmillennialist and certainly not a dispensationalist. He concludes: [/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]In other words, a man can believe in dispensations, and even see them in relation to progressive revelation, without being a dispensationalist. Is the essence of dispensationalism in the number of dispensations? No, for this is in no way a major issue in the system. [Emphasis mine.] [Dispensationalism Today, p44][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"It has now been demonstrated that pretribulationism and Dispensationalism are not to be found in the annals of the early church. So weighty and conclusive is the evidence that some leading pretribulational scholars, in recent years, have reluctantly admitted that historic premillennialism did not distinguish between Israel and the church:[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]'Historic premillennialism because of its merger of Israel and the church did not have an effective answer [to postmillennialism]. Dispensationalism, clearly distinguishing the program of Israel from the program for the church in the present age, provided content and method to refute postmillennialism and thereby became an ingredient in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy.'" [Bell p 48 - Walvoord, "Review of 'Dispensationalism in America'," Bibliotheca Sacra, 116:164, April, 1959][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"...it should be noted that the basic orientation of the dispensationalist is in error with regard to this problem [Oneness of Old and New Testament believers p94-98]. The New Testament actually speaks not so much of the Old Testament saints being admitted to the church, but of the Gentile believers of the New Testament age being admitted to Israel. The end result is the same -- the Old and New Testament saints comprise a single group, known after Pentecost as the church -- but the orientation is different." [Bell p 102][/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]One might also wonder how well pre-tribulationism was represented in the centuries following the early church.[/FONT]
[FONT=Bitstream Charter, serif]"... it is freely admitted by pretribulationists that no trace of the doctrine is to be found in church history after the Ante- Nicene fathers until the nineteenth century". [Emphasis mine.] [Bell, p27 - from Gerald B. Stanton, "Kept from the Hour", (unpublished doctor's dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1952 p, 315)][/FONT]