DANGER OF A FALSE PRE-TRIB RAPTURE

[popeye]

Post-trib "theology" has been debunked by pre-tribbers but that does not make post-trib wrong.

I am not "listening" to anyone but the Bible and the Holy Spirit regarding my end-times views.

I used to be a pre-tribber. But when I did an in depth Bible study about it I couldn't find any verses that supported it. Then I got to wondering where it came from and what the historical position of the church has been.

I discovered that the pre-trib idea was invented in the Albury prophesy conferences and then migrated to the Powerscourt prophesy conferences where John Darby picked it up and spent nearly 50 years teaching it. Scofield got it from Darby and people assumed that because it was in the Scofield Reference Bible it must be true.

It was also proclaimed through what are reported to be "demonic utterances" in the Catholic Apostolic Church in the early 1830s.

It really isn't in the Bible. The only way it can be justified is if the passages that declare the post-trib position Mt 24, 1 Cor 15:51-52, 2 Thes 2, etc., are invalidated with Dispensational theology. Darby created Dispensationalism specifically to invalidate the Bible's clear meaning of a post-trib resurrection.

I also discovered that the history of the church has been clearly post-tribulational.

"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]


"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:


'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]


"...it should be noted that the basic orientation of the dispensationalist is in error with regard to this problem. 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]


It is concluded, then, that pretribulationism and the concomitant 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:


(1) Every writer who deals with the subject in any specific way is posttribulational.


(2) No writer sees a dual coming of Christ in prospect.


(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.


(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.


(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]


(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]


​

One might also wonder how well pre-tribulationism was represented in the centuries following the early church.

"... 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". [Bell, p27 - from Gerald B. Stanton, "Kept from the Hour", (unpublished doctor's dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1952 p, 315)]


​

How well then, is the post-tribulation position represented in church history?

Justin Martyr
(c. 150 A.D.) O unreasoning men! understanding not what has been proved by all these passages, that two advents of Christ have been announced: the one, in which He is set forth as suffering, inglorious, dishonored, and crucified; but the other, in which He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High, shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians. [Bell, p 33-34 - Justin Martyr, "Dialog with Trypho," The Ante-Nicene Fathers, I, 253-54]


Irenaeus
(Late 2nd Cen.) And he [Anti-Christ] shall speak words against the most high God, and wear out the saints of the most high God, and shall purpose to change times and laws; and (everything) shall be given into his hand until a time [IS THIS RIGHT] of times and a half time, that is, for three years and six months, during which time, when he comes, he shall reign over the earth. Of whom also the Apostle Paul again, speaking in the second (Epistle) of the Thessalonians, and at the same time proclaiming the cause of his advent, thus says: "And then shall the wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the spirit of His mouth, and destroy by the presence of His coming."


For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule; in (the time of) which (resurrection) the righteous shall reign in the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord: and through Him they shall become accustomed to partake in the glory of God the Father, and shall enjoy in the kingdom intercourse and communion with the holy angels, and union with spiritual beings; and (with respect to) those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from heaven, and who have suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the Wicked One. [Bell, p 34 - Irenaeus, "Against Heresies," ANF, I, 554, 565]


And they [the ten kings] shall...give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight" (Against Heresies V, 26, 1) [Gundry, p.175]


But he [John] indicates the number of the name [Antichrist, 666] now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is(Against Heresies V, 30, 4) [Gundry, p.175]

​

Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John. John wrote far more about the Lord's return in the New Testament than did all other writers combined. It's safe to assume that the apostle John had a pretty clear understanding of the return of Christ and that Polycarp and Irenaeus would have had a better idea than anyone else of what John taught. Charges from Walvoord of Irenaeus being clouded, immature, or heretical should raise more questions about Walvoord's teaching than that of Irenaeus.

Tertullian
(c. 200 A.D.) ... In the Revelation of John, again, the order of these times is spread out to view... that the beast Antichrist with his false prophet may wage war on the Church of God. ...


"For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven, if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked;" which means, before we put off the garment of the flesh, we wish to be clothed with the celestial glory of immortality. Now the privilege of this favour awaits those who shall at the coming of the Lord be found in the flesh, and who shall, owing to the oppressions of the time of Antichrist, deserve by an instantaneous death, which is accomplished by a sudden change, to become qualified to join the rising saints. [Bell, p 35 - Tert. "On the Resurrection of the Flesh," ANF, III, 563]


That the beast Antichrist with his false prophet may wage war in the Church of God.... Since, then, the Scriptures both indicate the stages of the last times, and concentrate the harvest of the Christian hope in the very end of the world..."(On the Resurrection of the Flesh xxv; cf, Scorpiace xii) [Gundry, p.177]"


Hippolytus
(early 3rd Cen.) It is proper that we take the Holy Scriptures themselves in hand, and find out from them what, and of what manner, the coming of Antichrist is; on what occasion and at what time the impious one shall be revealed; and whence and from what tribe (he shall come); and what his name is, which is indicated by the number in the Scripture; and how he shall work error among the people, gathering them from the ends of the earth; and (how) he shall stir up tribulation and persecution against the saints; and how he shall glorify himself as God; and what his end shall be; and how the sudden appearing of the Lord shall be revealed from heaven; and what the conflagration of the whole world shall be; and what the glorious and heavenly kingdom of the saints is to be, when they reign together with Christ; and what the punishment of the wicked by fire. [Bell, p 35-36 - Hip.,"Treatise on Christ and Antichrist," ANF, v, 205]


Now concerning the tribulation of the persecution which is to fall upon the Church from the adversary [he has been speaking of the Antichrist and the Antichrist's persecution of the saints and continues in the same vein]...That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days (the half of the week) during which the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church (Treatise on Christ and Antichrist 60,61). [Gundry, p. 176]


Ephriam the Syrian
(306-373) Nothing remains then, except that the coming of our enemy, Antichrist, appear..."(Sermo Asceticus, I) [MacPherson, p.18]


Cyril of Jerusalem
(315-386) The Church declares to thee the things concerning Antichrist before they arrive... it is well that, knowing these things, thou shouldest make thyself ready beforehand (Catechetical Lectures, 15,9) [MacPherson, p.18]


Augustine
(354-430) But he who reads this passage [Daniel 12] even half asleep, cannot fail to see that the kingdom of Antichrist shall fiercely, though for a short time, assail the Church...(The City of God, XX, 23). [MacPherson, p.19]


Bernard of Clairvaux
(1090-1153) There remains only one thing - that the demon of noonday [Antichrist] should appear, to seduce those who remain still in Christ... (Sermons on the Song of Songs, 33, 16). [MacPherson, p.19]


John Wycliffe
(1320-1384) Wherefore let us pray to God that he keep us in the hour of temptation, which is coming upon all the world, Rev iii (Writings of the Reverend and Learned John Wickliff, D.D., p. 155) [MacPherson, p.18]


Martin Luther
(1483-1546) [The book of Revelation] is intended as a revelation of things that are to happen in the future, and especially of the tribulations and disasters for the Church ... (Works of Martin Luther, VI, p. 481). [MacPherson, p.19-20]


John Knox
(1515-1572) ...the great love of God towards his Church, whom he pleased to forewarne of dangers to come, so many yeers before they come to passe ... to wit, The man of sin, The Antichrist, The Whore of Babilon (The Historie of the Reformatioun..., I, p. 76) [MacPherson, p.20]


John Foxe
(1516-1587) ... that second beast prophesied to come in the later time of the Church ... to disturb the whole Church of Christ... (Acts and Monuments, I). [MacPherson, p. 20]"


Daniel Whitby
(1638-1726) ...after the Fall of Antichrist, there shall be such a glorious State of the Church ... so shall this be the Church of Martyrs, and of those who had not received the Mark of the Beast... ("A Paraphrase and Commentary", p. 696) [MacPherson, p. 21]


John Newton
(1725-1807) Fear not temptation's fiery day, for I will be thy strength and stay. thou hast my promise, hold it fast, the trying hour [Revelation 3:10] will soon be past ( "The Works of the Rev. John Newton, Vol II, p. 152) [MacPherson, p.22]


Oswald J. Smith
... I am absolutely convinced that there will be no rapture before the Tribulation, but that the Church will undoubtedly be called upon to face the Antichrist..." (Tribulation or Rapture - Which?, p. 12) [MacPherson, p.29]


Harold J. Ockenga
No exegetical justification exists for the arbitrary separation of the 'coming of Christ' and the 'day of the Lord.' It is one 'day of the Lord Jesus Christ' (Christian Life, February, 1955). [MacPherson, p.31]"


John R. W. Stott
He would not spare them from the suffering [Revelation 3:10]; but He would uphold them in it" (What Christ Thinks of the Church, p.104). [MacPherson, p.33]


Bernard L. Ramm
...as the Church moves to meet her Lord at the parousia world history is also moving to meet its Judge at the same parousia (Leo Eddleman's Last Things, p. 41) [MacPherson, p.33]


J. Barton Payne
Hippolytus, for example, foresaw a rather complex series of events which would culminate in the coming of Christ, including a ten-nation confederacy, the appearance of Anti-Christ, and severe persecution of the church. He felt that these events might begin at any time, but Christ's coming itself would thus not be at any moment.


Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Lactantius also foresaw detailed complexes of events, climaxed by Christ's coming and thus could not be classified as believing in immanency." [Bell p50 - from J. Barton Payne, The Imminent Appearing of Christ, p17-18]
​

These are all unquestionably post-tribulational views. Historic Christianity supports the view that the event known by some as the rapture, more accurately titled the Resurrection, Gathering, Harvest, or Translation of the Saints, is to take place at the end of the period commonly referred to as the tribulation. And the Dispensationalists clearly admit it to be so.

Since pretribulationists admit that the doctrine was unknown during the period following the Ante-Nicene age until "rediscovered" and "refined" by the nineteenth-century Plymouth Brethren, ... it will be unnecessary to survey the intervening period in this study. [Bell p56]
​

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bets/vol02/2-3_payne.pdf
THE REFORMATION CHURCH. The Reformation of the sixteenth century recapturedthe classical hope of the imminent appearing of Christ. The reformersadopted the Waldensian identification of the papacy with the antichrist13 and prayedthat the Lord would shortly appear to destroy this Roman Magog. Luther called thePope, "A greater pest than the Turks," and insisted, "I will not permit anyone torob me of my opinion that the day of the Lord is not far hence."H Calvin, in turn,concluded: "Today we must be alert to grasp the imminent return of Christ"; andagain, "Be prepared to expect Him every day, or rather every moment."15 This hopeof the reformers also continued to be post-tribulational, their amillennialism thusmaking the final judgement itself imminent; compare Melanchthon: "The day ofjudgement is already upon [us] and is at the doors.l6 But it was imminent; andthe reason lay in their interpretation of prophecy historically, that is, as capable ofcontemporary fulfillment. Latimer, for example, explained:5t. Paul says, "The Lord will not come till the swerving from the faith cometh" (I1Thess. 2:3), which thing is already done and past. Antichrist is already known throughoutall the world: wherefore the day is not far off.J7

Do you guys see that?????

You people quoting these dead men as infallible and agreeing with your post trib rapture nonsense.

They were AMILLINEAL.

 

[MattTooFor]

You don't know nada my friend, else you would know you aren't comprehending what is being said. I know that because you are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo far off the mark you're not even in the same time zone.

Deny all you like. All I know is...every time you come around I feel a chill...and experience a kind of condescension, resistance, and unpleasantness.

 

[MattTooFor]

You're like Samuel. The problem isn't in the content, the problem is in the delivery. To be honest, you're just too wound up to see straight. Like I used to be. Maybe I've gone too far to the other side and seem laze-fair. One way alienates people. the other prevents strokes .

Just for an example, you berated Ahwatuki for not changing his mind in the face of your endless repetitions. All I stated was that he could say the same for you. Your endless repetitions won't convince him any more than his will convince you. That's all I said. Yet you take that as a major insult.

Would my getting wound up and vengefully attacking you make it any clearer? No. Yet that seems to be your tactic towards me.

Sorry if I seem too low key here to you. I've just realized that bloviating does no good and all one can do here is present their point and move on.

Like I'm going to now.

Wow, there is a lot of dishonest falsehood and condescension in this short little post. Well done, Rick. You really packed it in.

"Vengefully attacking"? That's a falsehood. A false accusation. You "bear false witness" against me, Rick.

And "berating" people? And "berating" people for "not changing their mind"? Total baloney. Another falsehood. I debate, I discuss, I rebut. Rebutting people isn't "berating" them. That's a cheap shot. And when I encounter dishonesty (like now, for example), I will call a spade, a spade. You can call it "berating" all day long, if you like.

And then the condescension about "endless repetitions"...is just that - condescension. To borrow from some of your references - it's all about the delivery AND the content. You've got your work cut out for you, Rick.

And then more patronizing condescension with references to being "too wound up to see straight". Work on that delivery and content, bro. And it is quite ironic-- if I suffer from this blindness you refer to...why not help a brother out. Help me see the error of my ways. Where have I gone wrong with the following argumentation? I can't get ANY of you PreTribbers to touch this with so much as a ten foot pole. It is quite amazing. Here, once again, is this very simple proposal:

One of two things is true: 1) Jesus told His believers to expect to go through great tribulation. So...either Jesus, Peter, James and John believed and taught false doctrine...and therefore is PreTrib correct...

...OR...

2) Jesus was correct and the beliefs and teachings of Peter, James and John are correct...and therefore is PreTrib an absurdity.

Time for you guys to pull out your ten foot poles.

 

[MattTooFor]

Hey Rick, you need to be either hot or cold, lukewarm will not cut it. You have done the same thing with me that you did with Matt, you defend post-trib and then turn around and attack those who present post-trib. Are you running for political office? Ha,ha. really guy, get on one side or the other.

Great to hear an echo in here! I've seen the same strange duplicity. Don't know what's going on there.

I appreciate your vigorous comments. The way you call a spade, a spade. People like us certainly have our work cut out for us, trying to drag people away from their double-shot Cafe Lattes, drag them out of their Starbucks, awaken the snoozing believers. I have my hands full already...just trying to get my family spiritually prepared if, per chance, these things take place in our lifetime. And then I go around the Internet, trying to spread the word.

It just hard for me to understand people flat-out turning down the words of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse.

 

[Johnny_B]

One of two things is true: 1) Jesus told His believers to expect to go through great tribulation. So...either Jesus, Peter, James and John believed and taught false doctrine...and therefore is PreTrib correct...

...OR...

2) Jesus was correct and the beliefs and teachings of Peter, James and John are correct...and therefore is PreTrib an absurdity.

Time for you guys to pull out your ten foot poles.

My brother Matt, why do you keep using circular reasoning, your unbreakable chain of, Jesus teaching false doctrine if it's not what you believe. I understand that you have researched it and have come to the conclusion that you've come to, I wish I could say the same. Did the apostles see great tribulation sure they did, did Jesus say they would see, the great tribulation, I don't think so. Matthew 24:15 "“Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand)," Go to it, Daniel says that the antichrist will stand in the sanctuary and exalt himself above God (my paraphrase) and Daniel says in 9:26 that desolations are determined, plural. So a read of Daniel and history Titus never stood in the sanctuary and exalted himself above God nor did he confirm a covenant with the people of Jerusalem. So yes he fulfilled part of those abominations of desolations, but not the final one, because Titus didn't stop sacrifice and offerings.

We always have to remember that when interpreting Scripture we need to determine what is the best method of doing so. In the Olivet Discourse Christ is giving details of what's going to happen in answer to the three question asked by the disciples. When will these things be (temple), what is the sign of your coming and the end of the age? When Jesus says "you" is it "you" as in you standing in front of Him or when "you" the people that see the sign of His coming? From what I can tell by doing research some were to them and some will be others, because they did not see the final desolation where the antichrist stands in the Temple declares himself God and puts an end to sacrifice and offerings, after making a covenant with many, because Titus didn't do that.

What the understanding of Daniel's prophecy and history, we know that Titus did not fulfill it all. There are time to be fulfilled yet to come. Did Jesus lie, by no means, do we not understand everything, for sure, why? Because prophecy is in part and what we know in part will be fully revealed when the perfect (with the definite article in front of perfect, it has to be talking about Jesus, not the word of God) has come. Then we will know fully as we are known fully. Anyone that is dogmatic on prophecy is arrogant and proud, the prophets didn't even understand what they were prophesying. I Peter 1:10- "I Peter 1:10-12 “Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us[b] they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things which angels desire to look into.”

If they didn't understand the salvation they were prophesying about, why would we assume that they knew about the end times prophecies, which are all about our salvation.For me I would rather defend the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints and give a defense for the hope that is in me, with genteelness and respect. Which I hope I did here, I am not trying to change your mind or say that what you believe is false, because I don't know what the Lord has revealed to you about prophecy. Now if we were talking about salvation by some other means besides grace, then I would have something to say and try to correct you by the Scriptures.

There is to much man centered messages out there that are claiming that it's grace from God, when it's faith by men, making their faith more powerful then God's grace. I would rather defend the Gospel of grace than get in a twist about something no one can with certainty that they know without a shadow of a doubt. Matt I'm not picking on you, for some reason I fell a connection with you, maybe because I was so dogmatic about these very things years ago.

God Bless my Brother Matt.

 

[EarnestQ]

It is of course your decision on how you spent your eternity......Have a good day...
Blade\

One of the problems I have the the authoritarianism of Dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture is that it leads to idolatry as demonstrated by this response. Blade is implying that if I don't hold to his end times position then I am not saved. This is declaring that it is just as important to believe what he believes as it is to believe in the death burial and resurrection of God's one and only human born Son. This is idolatry.

This is a common mark of any cult.

 

[PrynceNY]

One of the problems I have the the authoritarianism of Dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture is that it leads to idolatry as demonstrated by this response. Blade is implying that if I don't hold to his end times position then I am not saved. This is declaring that it is just as important to believe what he believes as it is to believe in the death burial and resurrection of God's one and only human born Son. This is idolatry. This is a common mark of any cult.

it's ironic you state that because basically all i've been seeing is people who believe the pre trib is false constantly creating threads arguing with people.

 

[EarnestQ]

it's ironic you state that because basically all i've been seeing is people who believe the pre trib is false constantly creating threads arguing with people.

I haven't noticed any post-tribbers making such a claim, and I feel most of the pre-tribbers are not so bold either. I was just commenting about my own observations.

 

[pottersclay]

I'm fine with post trib, pre trib, mid trib, no trib views. It's when the posting of the views start challenging the integrity of a person.

Hey not everyone likes ketchup on their hotdog. Or the same salad dressing. Etc etc.

I'm a believer in pre trib does that make me any the less saved? Unrepented ? Less loved by God?
Some here like a Saturday Sabbath, some use a prayer shaw. Some say need for baptism, others not. Come on saints let's agree to disagree and post why.

I hope that all of us are found worthy for the trip home before the fireworks start. (Thats my belief). Now to be truthful I did pray that some of you hard core post trib mid trib saints experience air sickness for the duration. Pray the Lord work with me on that.


Potter

 

[EarnestQ]

I'm fine with post trib, pre trib, mid trib, no trib views. It's when the posting of the views start challenging the integrity of a person.

Hey not everyone likes ketchup on their hotdog. Or the same salad dressing. Etc etc.

I'm a believer in pre trib does that make me any the less saved? Unrepented ? Less loved by God?
Some here like a Saturday Sabbath, some use a prayer shaw. Some say need for baptism, others not. Come on saints let's agree to disagree and post why.

I hope that all of us are found worthy for the trip home before the fireworks start. (Thats my belief). Now to be truthful I did pray that some of you hard core post trib mid trib saints experience air sickness for the duration. Pray the Lord work with me on that.


Potter

A friend once told me he was a pan-tribber: whatever pans out was fine with him. lol

 

[Johnny_B]

Here's what the apostles thought about eschatology after the Olivet Discourse and forty days of teaching on the kingdom of God.

Acts 1:3 "He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.........So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

They after being taught be our Lord Himself, they still didn't get it. They thought that those 40 days, fulfilled the Olivet Discourse Acts 1:6 “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” Did Jesus teach them false doctrine? NO! Yet they didn't understand how it all worked, why? Because prophecy is in part, it's not fully revealed, but the kingdom of God as in salvation is full revealed so that we can have full understanding and know for sure what salvation is. Unlike prophecy, that it is given in part, because it's a secondary doctrine.

There are so many people that do not understand God's grace, being born again and why you need to be born again or how you become born again, many think it's by faith, when it's by God's grace that He MADE us alive (born agin, born of God, regenerated), not by our faith. Peter says, "always be prepared to make a defense to anyone how asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you;" Jude says, "Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints". This seems more important then whether the rapture is true or not, when it happens, before the GT after the GT, when we need to know is that we are getting glorified bodies, when He meets us in the air. Whether we go up or return with Him at that time, doesn't matter to me, because I have gained my inheritance.

God Bless my Brothers.

 

[MattTooFor]

My brother Matt, why do you keep using circular reasoning

Here is what Jesus said to Peter, James and John wheh they asked Him what would happen in the end times. Here is what Jesus said:

Matthew 24:15,21,29,31 - "...when [1] you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet...[2] then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will...but immediately [3] after the tribulation of those days... He will send forth His angels...and they will gather together His elect from the four winds...".

Where is my alleged "circular reasoning"? I'm simply quoting Scripture verbatim. Jesus said first look for the Abomination, secondly, expect to then go through "great tribulation" and thirdly, "after the tribulation" the angels will "gather the elect".

Where is this "circular reasoning" you speak of? If PreTribbers wish to contradict Jesus' teaching...they can contradict Jesus' teaching. (?)

My brother Matt, why do you keep using circular reasoning, your unbreakable chain of, Jesus teaching false doctrine if it's not what you believe.

I'm not understanding you - I don't believe Jesus is teaching false doctrine. (?)

When Jesus says "you" is it "you" as in you standing in front of Him or when "you" the people that see the sign of His coming?

Jesus said He did not know the "day or hour" of these events. So He did not know whether it was the people standing in front of Him or a future generation of believers.

Anyone that is dogmatic on prophecy is arrogant and proud

A lot of ad hominem coming from you PreTribbers. Come on now, Johnny. Christianity is ALL ABOUT developing strong beliefs and strong convictions. After all, we're betting out lives and our souls on the truth. I would say I stop short of "dogmatism" though. ALL of my beliefs are up for review at any given time. Only God has 'absolute knowledge'.

If they didn't understand the salvation they were prophesying about, why would we assume that they knew about the end times

You're misapplying Scripture in order to argue we can't understand our beliefs. If we can't hope tyo understand anything, might as well close up shop. Christianity is done. Peter is saying the opposite - he is saying we CAN understand. The OT guys didn't have the insights we get to have.

and give a defense for the hope that is in me, with genteelness and respect.

Am I getting ad-hominem slimed again? You PreTrib guys are a rough crowd - LOL.

All I can do is refer you to the scripture I quoted above. Your two main arguments seem to be 1) that we shouldn't be "dogmatic" and 2) that some guys in the OT didn't fully understand what some guys in the NT DO understand.

I think I would be more interested in a direct discussion of the passage in question: Tell me why I don't have good cause to believe Jesus' simple words which I quoted to you above...particularly since Peter, James and John believed those words. That's all I'm really interested in. General comments about the ills of "dogmatism" and misapplication of Peter's comments about how OT guys were in the dark about some things...seems off-point to me.

 

[Yahweh_is_gracious]

A friend once told me he was a pan-tribber: whatever pans out was fine with him. lol

I like that. I've heard the saying "pray for pre, but prepare for post". I have no real preference one way or the other since I don't really understand any of it.

 

[MattTooFor]

They after being taught be our Lord Himself, they still didn't get it.

Didn't get what? You seem to be admitting Jesus did teach the disciples to look for the Abomination, followed by great tribulation, followed by the Gathering...but that they just didn't "get it". I think you're making progress?

They thought that those 40 days, fulfilled the Olivet Discourse Acts 1:6 “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” Did Jesus teach them false doctrine? NO! Yet they didn't understand how it all worked, why? Because prophecy is in part

How long did their confusion last? Like 4 minutes? I would assume they went out from the Olivet Discourse believing what Jesus had told them about the Abomination/Tribulation/Gathering...but yes, possibly in the enormous upheaval and the spectacular event of the Lord's resurrection, maybe they had a few moments of confusion?

I think you're forgetting a small detail: It was the disciples who put together the four Gospels in the first place! Obviously, they recalled the Olivet Discourse correctly and in detail, and also recalled their momentary mix up, described by Luke in that Acts 1:6 passage.

Jude says, "Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints". This seems more important then whether the rapture is true or not, when it happens, before the GT after the GT,

Contending for Jesus' words in the Olivet Discourse IS "contending for the faith".

 

[RickyZ]

Hey Rick, you need to be either hot or cold, lukewarm will not cut it. You have done the same thing with me that you did with Matt, you defend post-trib and then turn around and attack those who present post-trib. Are you running for political office? Ha,ha. really guy, get on one side or the other.

I never attacked you for being post trib. In fact I've been purposefully saying you are telling the truth on that.

But maybe I should apologize to you both. You did nail me on one thing.

When I first came here I was full of spit and brimstone, convinced I was going to bring the truth to those in error here. And it frustrated me that I couldn't get them to change their minds, no matter how loudly or how many times I said it. Got a warning for it once actually . But over the years I've come to understand that 99% of the people are here for the same thing. And I came to understand that you can't change the mind of those who are not interested in having their minds changed.

A comment came out between the two of you, (to someone else), something along the lines of 'no matter how many times I repeat it you don't understand'. It caught my eye because I've said the very same thing many times. But like I said, I eventually wised up to the fact that you can't change the minds of those who do not want their minds changed.

And what you said about me making tangential non descript comments here and there is right. See, another thing I came to realize is that, if several people have already made an argument to someone and failed to change their mind, my parroting the thing once again ain't going to change that. It would be just another repetition of what they have already rejected. And as you pointed out repletion just doesn't do it, does it? So now I wander the halls like a ghost looking for the little things that no one else has made note of yet. It's about the only original material I got left here. Thanks for noticing lol

Anyway, it made me feel your frustration and see how such frustration eats at us, and all I was trying to say is guys, it's not worth beating your heads against the brick wall over. I'm sorry if it came across as an attack. There are reasons I'm not a diplomat...

You guys are good with your eschatology and I have always said that. But, take it from me, you can scream it over and over and over at Ahwatuki until you're red in the face and the only thing that's going to change is that you'll be red in the face. State your case and move on before their obstinance riles you. That's what I've learned to do. Or at least try to do.

 

[Rondonmon]

Matthew 24:15,21,29,31 - "...when [1] you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet...[2] then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will...but immediately [3] after the tribulation of those days... He will send forth His angels...and they will gather together His elect from the four winds...".

You left something off on those scriptures didn't you?.....[FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]from one end of heaven to the other[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. So he gathers us the ELECT (Who just married the Lamb in Heaven) from the FOUR CORNERS OF HEAVEN.

[/FONT]

Jesus said He did not know the "day or hour" of these events. So He did not know whether it was the people standing in front of Him or a future generation of believers.[FONT=&quot]

That's true, but Jesus is not speaking of Matthew 24:27-31 when he says that. The Vials will be poured out in order and you actually think Jesus will not understand when God is going to send him at the Second Coming? Even the people of earth will see the Gathering at Armageddon and understand that is the 6th Vial.

You guys mix up the Second coming and the Rapture. And no matter how much people point these facts out t you you are set in your belief. That's OK, but it doesn't make you right.

Now for the scriptures Jesus was speaking of when he spoke about not knowing the day nor the hour. That would be Matthew 24:32-44 this is the Rapture, it should be between Matthew 24:13 and 14.

As in the days of Noah........they will be drinking/marrying/partying etc. etc. BELIEVE ME, when God is pouring the Vials of Gods Wrath out, they will not be Marrying/partying/eating etc. They will be hiding from Gods Wrath. That is about the RAPTURE that comes as a Surprise, the Second Coming can't come as a surprise, we know the Anti-Christ is given exactly 1260 days to Rule. We know when they gather at Armageddon, Jesus is already on the way. It doesn't make sense that the Father sends Jesus at the Second Coming, that's already mapped out.

But the Father sending Jesus to collect the Bride will be a TOTAL SURPRISE. And twp will be in the field, one taken and one left. Two will be grinding, one taken and one left. That is the RAPTURE. Not the Second Coming which foes not fit.

And the Devil loves to mix truth with lies. The truth is the Church returns with Jesus, IMMEDIATELY AFTER the Tribulation of those Days. That does make sense looking at Rev. 19 doesn't it? The Church marry's the Lamb then Returns with him on white horses and the ANTI-CHRIST and his minions is still on Earth awaiting us.

[/FONT]

Am I getting ad-hominem slimed again? You PreTrib guys are a rough crowd - LOL.

All I can do is refer you to the scripture I quoted above. Your two main arguments seem to be 1) that we shouldn't be "dogmatic" and 2) that some guys in the OT didn't fully understand what some guys in the NT DO understand.[FONT=&quot]

I think some of them get frustrated because this is really not debatable. Its simple to me.

But that is not how we should act. I just throw in the facts as the Holy Spirit shows me and move on.

There are plenty of post-tribbers who bring forth hostilities also. Its a two way street. [/FONT]

 

[MattTooFor]

take it from me, you can scream it over and over and over at Ahwatuki until you're red in the face and the only thing that's going to change is that you'll be red in the face.

Just FYI - this isn't about Ahwatuki, Popeye, Bladerunner or any other intransigent PreTribbers. When I invest effort in a discussion board, my targets are the quiet "lurkers". The 4 or 5 souls who are quietly looking in on a given thread and reading through the posts and who then slip away, hopefully in reflective thought. I'll be "stating my case" over and over and over. I'm talking past these PreTrib guys. I appreciate some of your kind words (if you meant to include me). I just wish we could convince you take the Red Pill.

 

[Ahwatukee]

Good evening RonDonMon,

You left something off on those scriptures didn't you?....., from one end of heaven to the other. So he gathers us the ELECT (Who just married the Lamb in Heaven) from the FOUR CORNERS OF HEAVEN.

One of their on-going errors regarding their reference to "from one end of heaven to the other" is that this phrase doesn't mean what they think it does. They believe that when the Lord returns to the earth to end the age and sends out his angels , that this is representing the gathering of the church. Angels don't gather the church at the resurrection. The Lord himself descends and calls with that voice that sounds like a trumpet and the dead in Christ resurrect, with the living in Christ being changed and caught up immediately after. Regarding the phrase "from one of heaven to the other" they need to consider the following and apply the meaning:

"Listen, a noise on the mountains, like that of a great multitude! Listen, an uproar among the kingdoms, like nations massing together! The Lord Almighty is mustering an army for war. They come from faraway lands, from the ends of the heavens—the Lord and the weapons of his wrath—to destroy the whole country.

I listed the above to demonstrate to them that the phrase "from the ends of the heavens" in the scripture above from Isaiah, that it is in reference to an army coming from distant nations and not being caught up in the air. It is the same meaning here in Matt.24:31 regarding the angels where it states "they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other." When the Lord returns to the earth to end the age, he will send out his angels and gather the saints "from one end of the heavens to the other" meaning from the four the four corners of the earth.

The people that the angels will be gathering, will be those saints who make it through the great tribulation alive and who will be gathered from the four corners of the earth. The church is not in view here.

Their on-going error, is not recognizing that the gathering of the church vs. the Lord's return to the earth to end the age, as being two separate events, which are separated by at least seven years. And they are also not understanding the severity and magnitude of God's coming wrath.

 

[MattTooFor]

They believe that when the Lord returns to the earth to end the age and sends out his angels , that this is representing the gathering of the church.

Again, you have imposed your "church age" doctrine on the discussion. You haven't anywhere demonstrated it. You've imposed it.

The word "church"..."ekklesia" means "called out ones"...and ALL believers have been "called out". There is ZERO scriptural authority for claiming certain groups of believers don't get to view themselves as having been called out. You are applying pure circular reasoning.

Angels don't gather the church at the resurrection. The Lord himself descends and calls with that voice that sounds like a trumpet

Your cited 1Thess. passage does not exclude the detail of the angels' involvement. There is nothing there to give you a basis for that claim. The 1Thess. passage simply does not include that particular detail.

I listed the above to demonstrate to them that the phrase "from the ends of the heavens" in the scripture above from Isaiah, that it is in reference to an army coming from distant nations and not being caught up in the air. It is the same meaning here in Matt.24:31

Oh...my...goodness. The absolutely unbelievable stretching and wrenching of scripture. Wow.

he will send out his angels and gather the saints "from one end of the heavens to the other" meaning from the four the four corners of the earth.

Wow. That's another amazing twisting of the scriptures...because the text first says they are gathered from the four corners (or "four winds") and only THEN does it go on to say "from one end of the heavens to the other"...and yet, you breezily equate the two separate phrases. You are mangling the text.

The first phrase is a clear reference to a gathering of those who are earth-bound...and the other statement "from one end of the heavens to the other" is just what it appears to be (and which my little 12-year-old daughter attested to when she first read it)...a gathering of believers from (wait for it)...one end of the heavens to the other.

God's children who have left this earth (who have 'passed on') are located currently "from one end of the heavens to the other". They are those who have gone on to be with the Lord in "paradise" just as the thief on the cross...and are sprinkled all across God's kingdom.

This therefore is a description of a "resurrection". THE resurrection of the saints. The "first resurrection" described in Rev. 20:5.

 

[Ahwatukee]

Again, you have imposed your "church age" doctrine on the discussion. You haven't anywhere demonstrated it. You've imposed it.

Instead of responding with the the above, why don't you actually be a Berean and look at what I presented to you. Matt.24:31-32 is not the same event as 1 Thes.4:13-17.

Matt.24:31-32 is when the Lord returns to the earth to end the age, which takes place after God's wrath and therefore, since the church is not appointed to suffer Gods' wrath, the church cannot be gathered there. Matt.24:31-32 is not the gathering of the church.

I know that you think you know what talking about, but you are completely wrong. Talking to you an the others is the same as trying to convince preterists of the truth. You should not be teaching on end-time events, because you don't know what you are talking about. Whenever proof is presented to you, you just ignore it and present your distorted apologetic.

Everyone who comes to Christ has been reconciled to God and has been credited with righteousness. Jesus experienced God's wrath for every believer, satisfying it completely and fully. Yet this obviously means nothing to you, because you continue to proclaim that the Lord is going to put his church through his wrath, which demonstrates that you don't truly understand what the Lord did for us.

The church cannot and will not go through the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments, which are the wrath of God and that for the reasons listed above, but will be removed prior to that first seal being opened. When Matt.24:30-31 takes place, the church, who will have previously been resurrected and caught up, will be returning with the Lord to the earth. As I previously stated, the church is that army following Christ out of heaven riding on those white horses, also referred to in Rev.17:14 as his "called, chosen and faithful followers.

Jesus said, "because you have obeyed my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you [out of] the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test the inhabitants on the earth. The hour of trial is the time when the seals, trumpets and bowl judgments will be taking place. In the scripture, Jesus is promising to keep us out of it.

Why don't you actually do a complete exegetical study on end-time events instead of the garbage that you are preaching.