50 Reasons For a Pretribulational Rapture By Dr. John F. Walvoord

[randyk]

Sage: Here is more on the Antichrist from Wikipedia, in the section under Early Church--a brief synopsis. Generally, the Church Fathers looked at the 70 AD experience of the Jews as the fulfillment of Dan 9's "70th Week," along with the Olivet Discourse, which said the same. But future prophecy about the Antichrist was sometimes mixed in with this, as Irenaeus also saw Antichrist reflected in the "Abomination of Desolation." I personally see the AoD as indicating the Roman Army 66-70 AD. The Antichrist is, for me, a future character, as Irenaeus himself admitted.

If you want to get down to the sources, there are web sites with the writings of the Church Fathers, and you can search for Antichrist or something like it.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Here's what Irenaeus had to say about this "future" period and person (from "Against Heresies" Book 5, Chpt 25):

[quoting]

"... when he comes, he shall reign over the earth. Of whom also the Apostle Paul again, speaking in the second [Epistle] to 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; whose coming [i.e., the wicked one's] is after the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and portents of lies, and with all deceivableness of wickedness for those who perish; because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And therefore God will send them the working of error, that they may believe a lie; that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but gave consent to iniquity, 2 Thessalonians 2:8

"4. The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: I have come in my Father's name, and you have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him you will receive, John 5:43 calling Antichrist the other, because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one who feared not God, neither regarded man, Luke 18:2, etc. to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God — that is, the earthly Jerusalem, — to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. To this purpose Daniel says again: And he shall desolate the holy place; and sin has been given for a sacrifice, and righteousness been cast away in the earth, and he has been active (fecit), and gone on prosperously. Daniel 8:12 And the angel Gabriel, when explaining his vision, states with regard to this person: And towards the end of their kingdom a king of a most fierce countenance shall arise, one understanding [dark] questions, and exceedingly powerful, full of wonders; and he shall corrupt, direct, influence (faciet), and put strong men down, the holy people likewise; and his yoke shall be directed as a wreath [round their neck]; deceit shall be in his hand, and he shall be lifted up in his heart: he shall also ruin many by deceit, and lead many to perdition, bruising them in his hand like eggs. Daniel 8:23, etc. And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: And in the midst of the week, he says, the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete. Daniel 9:27 Now three years and six months constitute the half-week."

--Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 25 - https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103525.htm


[end quoting; bold emphasis mine]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Here's further what I'd wanted to point out in Irenaeus's quotes (earlier in his quotes... back in Book 5):

[quoting]

"For Enoch, when he pleased God, was translated in the same body in which he did please Him, thus pointing out by anticipation the translation of the just. Elijah, too, was caught up [when he was yet] in the substance of the [natural] form; thus exhibiting in prophecy the assumption of those who are spiritual, and that nothing stood in the way of their body being translated and caught up. For by means of the very same hands through which they were moulded at the beginning, did they [TDW: he means Enoch and Elijah] receive this translation and assumption…. Wherefore also the elders who were disciples of the apostles tell us that those who were translated [TDW: he means Enoch and Elijah] were transferred to that place (for paradise has been prepared for righteous men, such as have the Spirit; in which place also Paul the apostle, when he was caught up, heard words which are unspeakable as regards us in our present condition), and that there shall they who have been translated [TDW: he means Enoch and Elijah] remain until the consummation [of all things], as a prelude to immortality.)"

--Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” Book V [5], Chap. 5




[also]... "and those who were translated [TDW: he means Enoch and Elijah] do live as an earnest of the future length of days [TDW: pretty certain he means (mortal) "saints" (entering and existing) in/during the MK age]; and [as it might also appear impossible] that from the whale's belly and from the fiery furnace men issued forth unhurt, yet they nevertheless did so, led forth as it were by the hand of God, for the purpose of declaring His power: so also now, although some, not knowing the power and promise of God, may oppose their own salvation, deeming it impossible for God, who raises up the dead; to have power to confer upon them eternal duration, yet the scepticism of men of this stamp shall not render the faithfulness of God of none effect."

--[same] Book V [5], Chapter 5 [ https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103505.htm ]


[end quoting; BLUE bracketed inserts mine; other bracketed inserts and parentheses original; bold mine]


____________

[recall what I'd said about Irenaeus's belief in the 3 levels of destination... Heaven, paradise, earth]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^

[recall what I'd said about Irenaeus's belief in the 3 levels of destination... Heaven, paradise, earth]

EDIT - Should read: "[recall what I'd said about Irenaeus's belief in the 3 levels of destination FOR BELIEVERS / SAINTS... Heaven, paradise, earth]"

 

[GaryA]

Because both of those things don't happen at the second coming. Salvation and immortality happens at the second coming but "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years has ended" proves that damnation is a long time after the second coming. Even Satan isn't destroyed at the second coming since he is imprisoned.

Yes - I am well aware that "forever" damnation is brought about on Judgment Day - after the 1000-year reign of Christ on the earth.

I used those words because the person I quoted used those words - I was making a point...

I was actually referring to the Wrath of God on the wicked at the Second Coming of Christ.

 

[GaryA]

I cant remember a postrib rapture thread...where that doctrine is laid out.

We don't need a thread for that - we have the Bible!






(I could not resist.)

 

[Absolutely]

We don't need a thread for that - we have the Bible!






(I could not resist.)

I have seen utube vids on the postrib rapture.

 

[GaryA]

I'm not sure who is saying this ^ (whether these are your words or Abs' words ^ or someone else??), but again, this ^ is not the "pre-trib" argument. IOW, that's not what *my* point has been.

Does this help...?

That is when HIS FEET touch the GROUND on the Mount of OLIVES, splitting it in two. It is not a COMING until HIS feet touch the GROUND.

 

[randyk]

I've mentioned in past posts, how that saying "churchES" is not exactly the same thing as saying "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY":

--"the churchES" are made up of both those who are saved, AND those who come in His name but who are not actually saved/connected with Christ/believers (ex: I believe the term "lukewarm" is speaking not of milquetoast "Christians"/ believers / saints, but of the unsaved);

--"the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" is made up of ONLY believers / saints / the saved

[Rev1:4,11,20... and Rev2-3 (like 7x, I think)... and chpt 22 use the term "churchES"]

I tend to view "Christians" and the "Church" as all those who simply claim to believe in Christ as their spiritual life. They are not always consisting of those who completely make the transition to the "new birth."

People can follow the "knowledge of Christ" without making a complete commitment to him from the heart. They may mean well, but unless they completely commit to Christ, they are basically men living in their carnal nature who only sometimes obey Christ's word. They are not fully transformed.

The Church thus consists of all kinds of Christians who are in process of determining whether they will complete their "Salvation" with a complete transfer of power, from their carnal selves to Christ himself, who would endow them with a completely new spiritual nature.

I don't know if this definition appeals to you? Most Christians I know define the "Church" as the "glorious Bride of Christ" as if transported into the future, all of the "Christians" who didn't make it are now cut off.

I believe both definitions of "Church" are used in the Bible. It tends to refer to a church as simply a gathering of those who profess faith in Christ, whether they become the future glorious Bride or not.

The ideal is also presented when in the future those who prevail in their faith and are spiritually made new become "glorified." This is how the Bible views the *future Church.* Let me know what you think?

 

[GaryA]

You didn't define "gathering" in v.1. I take it to mean a rapture.

Well - actually I did - just somehow failed to highlight it like the rest...

 

[GaryA]

No Gary. What follows the Tribulation is Christ's Millennial reign on this earth. Rev 20 is quite clear about that.

The millenial reign does follow - that is correct. However, there is a 3.5 year period between end-of-trib and the Second Coming of Christ - at which point in time the millennial reign begins...

 

[GaryA]

I've mentioned in past posts, how that saying "churchES" is not exactly the same thing as saying "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY":

--"the churchES" are made up of both those who are saved, AND those who come in His name but who are not actually saved/connected with Christ/believers (ex: I believe the term "lukewarm" is speaking not of milquetoast "Christians"/ believers / saints, but of the unsaved);

--"the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" is made up of ONLY believers / saints / the saved

Have you ever read this? :

http://mywebsite.us/ABA/Topics/Local_New_Testament_Church.html

What do you think of it?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Does this help...?

Okay, I "get" you now.

The next question I would put forward (in view of this ^ ) would be:

--did the poster mean His "RETURN" (which indeed speaks ONLY of His Second Coming to the earth);
--or did the poster mean "erchomai [come]" in contexts referring to His Second Coming to the earth;
--or did the poster mean His "presence [parousia / coming]" in contexts referring to "TO the meeting OF THE LORD *in the air*";
--or did the poster mean His "presence [parousia / coming]" (as in His "MANIFESTATION of His presence/parousia/coming") to the earth when "EVERY EYE" shall see Him??


As I see it, it would depend on which "text" the poster *may* have been referencing AT THE TIME of his post (the context of the CONVO); OR perhaps he is conflating these "coming" words (in their various immediate contexts... as some in this thread do indeed conflate them...). I wouldn't be able to tell for certain, as I wasn't following that part of the convo obviously...

Thanks for clearing that up... how one poster was using the term. But note, that particular wording (as he put it, which you've quoted) is not how the "pre-trib viewpoint" would word it, technically speaking. = D But again, I've spelled out what it is, instead of that.

And again, I wasn't following that part of the convo, so I can't really guess which one of the above options the poster may have been referencing [/intending], when he said what he did. = )

 

[OldSage]

Sage: Here is more on the Antichrist from Wikipedia, in the section under Early Church--a brief synopsis. Generally, the Church Fathers looked at the 70 AD experience of the Jews as the fulfillment of Dan 9's "70th Week," along with the Olivet Discourse, which said the same. But future prophecy about the Antichrist was sometimes mixed in with this, as Irenaeus also saw Antichrist reflected in the "Abomination of Desolation." I personally see the AoD as indicating the Roman Army 66-70 AD. The Antichrist is, for me, a future character, as Irenaeus himself admitted.

If you want to get down to the sources, there are web sites with the writings of the Church Fathers, and you can search for Antichrist or something like it.

Hi Randy - yes that is what I have always believed also.
I was aware of iranaeus's views, but haven't really read him...


..........ponders............

 

[OldSage]

"When this AntiChrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that 'many coming from the east and the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob' " - Irenaeus

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

@OldSage - that's ^ what I (a pre-tribber) also point out... that is, that the "meal [G347]" (Matt8:11 and its parallel, plus other references to G347 in such a context) refers to "the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom age" (so *during* the Trib years, the "gentiles" [i.e. 'guests' (plural)] will have been "[those] having been INVITED" to it... via the msg of Matt24:14 / 26:13, Matt22:9-14, Lk12:42, etc...)

 

[peldom10]

Here's further what I'd wanted to point out in Irenaeus's quotes (earlier in his quotes... back in Book 5):

[quoting]

"For Enoch, when he pleased God, was translated in the same body in which he did please Him, thus pointing out by anticipation the translation of the just. Elijah, too, was caught up [when he was yet] in the substance of the [natural] form; thus exhibiting in prophecy the assumption of those who are spiritual, and that nothing stood in the way of their body being translated and caught up. For by means of the very same hands through which they were moulded at the beginning, did they [TDW: he means Enoch and Elijah] receive this translation and assumption…. Wherefore also the elders who were disciples of the apostles tell us that those who were translated [TDW: he means Enoch and Elijah] were transferred to that place (for paradise has been prepared for righteous men, such as have the Spirit; in which place also Paul the apostle, when he was caught up, heard words which are unspeakable as regards us in our present condition), and that there shall they who have been translated [TDW: he means Enoch and Elijah] remain until the consummation [of all things], as a prelude to immortality.)"

--Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” Book V [5], Chap. 5




[also]... "and those who were translated [TDW: he means Enoch and Elijah] do live as an earnest of the future length of days [TDW: pretty certain he means (mortal) "saints" (entering and existing) in/during the MK age]; and [as it might also appear impossible] that from the whale's belly and from the fiery furnace men issued forth unhurt, yet they nevertheless did so, led forth as it were by the hand of God, for the purpose of declaring His power: so also now, although some, not knowing the power and promise of God, may oppose their own salvation, deeming it impossible for God, who raises up the dead; to have power to confer upon them eternal duration, yet the scepticism of men of this stamp shall not render the faithfulness of God of none effect."

--[same] Book V [5], Chapter 5 [ https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103505.htm ]


[end quoting; BLUE bracketed inserts mine; other bracketed inserts and parentheses original; bold mine]

I don't believe we can conclude from scripture that the bodies of Enoch and Elijah were kept in natural form ....during translation. However, God can apply any action in any circumstance He should wish.



[recall what I'd said about Irenaeus's belief in the 3 levels of destination... Heaven, paradise, earth]

 

[OldSage]

@OldSage - that's ^ what I (a pre-tribber) also point out... that is, that the "meal [G347]" (Matt8:11 and its parallel, plus other references to G347 in such a context) refers to "the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom age" (so *during* the Trib years, the "gentiles" [i.e. 'guests' (plural)] will have been "[those] having been INVITED" to it... via the msg of Matt24:14 / 26:13, Matt22:9-14, Lk12:42, etc...)

Sit down therefore referring to eating a meal?
Gen 18:33 And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham

 

[OldSage]

Gen 18:6
And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth.

Mat 13:33
Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

 

[randyk]

Hi Randy - yes that is what I have always believed also.
I was aware of iranaeus's views, but haven't really read him...


..........ponders............

Irenaeus, as I said, sort of mixed up prophecies generally interpreted to be historical with prophecies generally interpreted to be future. The historical view of the 70th Week and the Olivet Discourse he interpreted with the endtimes in mind, not necessarily denying the historicist approach either.

The thing I'm wondering is when some of the historicist and the futurist materials sort of get rolled up together into a single set of ideas, such as Irenaeus did with Dan 9/Matt 24 and the Antichrist, how did they fit time-wise? I know that some Church Fathers held to the septa-millennial view, believing that there was yet a long period of tribulation before the Kingdom of God comes. Antichrist, thus, was likely to be a long ways off.

Irenaeus may have been looking at a shorter time-line between the 1st century and the coming of Antichrist? Maybe that's why he blended in the prophecy of Antichrist with the historical prophecy of the Fall of Jerusalem? I don't know! I do believe that most of the Church Fathers saw the Roman Empire as preliminary to and directly leading into the Kingdom of Antichrist, when that Empire comes to form a 10 nation confederation.

I simply think Irenaeus looked beyond the 70 AD event, being more interested in what lies in the future. He therefore took traditionally historicist passages, such as the 70th Week and Olivet Discourse, and transferred their meaning over into futurist terms, which doesn't really fit. But these were hardly critical matters back in his time.