Featured Questioning My belief in pre trib rapture

Walvoord says seven. Who is correct?

Well the truth is that both are wrong no matter how they try to spin it!

 

Several things said here have generated much more heat than light....

In final eschatological analysis, it does not matter whether Dispensational Pre-trib, Historic Pre-Mil, or A-mil is correct. Our hope is not in Jesus' return--though we should always be ready for it, praying for it, and looking for it. Instead, our great hope is the Resurrection--no matter when, where, or how it happens.

I'm fairly well an A-mil guy... But, in reality, there is far too much ink and electrons spilled over this issue as if it were a doctrine on the same level as the trinity, the divinity of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, etc. It simply does not rise to that level of importance.

That the poster in the OP is searching is a very good thing. Regardless of what we might believe about eschatology, it is important to know exactly what we believe, why we believe it, what the Scripture means when it talks about eschatological realities, and how to differ with one another respectfully and winsomely on this issue.

Many have said--Mark Dever, specifically--if your eschatological position is dogmatified in your church's or denomination's statement of faith, it is likely sinful to make such a dogmatic statement (and, therefore, a separation) where Scripture makes no such dogma.

The important thing is to affirm that Christ will return, not the manner and time of that return.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Kudos, well stated.

 

Very well said and much appreciated.

I have said on many occasions on this BB that, though I disagree with classic dispensational eschatology, I believe that the gravest error in this pre-trib-dispensationalism is their belief in a "parenthesis" church; that the Church for which Jesus Christ died is an interruption in God's purpose for Israel. Many "rapture ready" dispensationalists on this BB greatly resent that being noted and refuse to discuss any basis for that doctrine. I have routinely presented quotations from leading classic pre-trib-dispensational scholars? who hold that doctrine. It seems from what Thomas Ice writes about John Nelson Darby that he is the granddaddy of this doctrine. I have posted in recent months a number of remarks from Ice's writing about Darby.

I have also said on this BB that I do not believe ones eschatology should become a matter of fellowship in the Church. However, that is not what some folks believe or practice. The normal response from some of these pre-tribbers in my neck of the woods is that if you are not "rapture ready" you don't believe the Bible. Now that is dogmatic but I can be dogmatic and am generally willing to discuss their eschatology either on the BB or in person!

The sad truth is that many of these 'Rapture Ready" folks really do not know the basis for their belief. They simply have heard it taught for years. It is my belief that the Scofield Bible has caused nothing but trouble in the Baptist denomination as well as several others churches.

Thankfully there is a movement in dispensationalism circles away from the classic dispensational doctrine of the "parenthesis" church and more toward the historic or covenant premillennial doctrine of eschatology and the Church.

 

That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Where is this so called movement and who is in it.

 

Progressive Dispensationalism

Many thanks for your Christ-like remarks. They are certainly appreciated on this day before Thanksgiving!

You have had your lesson for today young man!

 

Your so called movement, progressive dispensationalism, is like a liberal trying to call himself a conservative. And yes it is dumb. No one takes it serious and no one considers it a "movement". Point # 3 in your previous post is a primary reason why. "The church is distinct but not radically distinct" what kind of junk is that?

Progressive is an appropriate name for it. Dispensational it is not in any way. So no it is not a movement.

 

There are none so blind as those who will not see. The pre-trib-dispensational doctrine of the "parenthesis" church is a grievous error and will fade as the current believers in this grievous doctrine die out. I call your attention to one comment from the above info I presented to demonstrate this fact:

To say that Jesus Christ died for an "interruption in God's purpose for Israel" is a disgusting divisive doctrine! It undermines the Sovereignty of God over His Creation.and minimizes the redemptive death of Jesus Christ. May God grant it the fate it so richly deserves!

 

Point #3 actually says it well: The Church is not a mere “parenthesis” in an otherwise-Jewish divine plan.

I have made this statement many times in a slightly different form. The Baptist Faith and Message [Section VI] adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, Georgia on June 14, 2000 states it as follows:

“The New Testament also speaks of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

 

OK this does not address anything I said.

 

Again, none of this addresses anything I said. Further, did you know that there were both general and particular baptists on the BF&M committee and it was intentionally worded so that both sides could accept it?

 

You made the following statement regarding my comments on the rise of progressive dispensationalism and its journey toward the truth:

I have proven that you are wrong just as wrong as your pre-trib-dispensational doctrine, in particular that heinous doctrine which teaches that the Church, for which Jesus Christ endured the cross, is simply a "parenthesis", an interruption, in God's program for Israel!

 

So your answer is: "There is one more indicating more than one, or at least two of the resurrections that Walvoord mentioned in his list. You still cant' say that there is only one resurrection can you?
Your answer to the passage in Matthew is not a serious one. It is simply "Could it be?" "Could it be?" Yeah, I suppose it could have been--could have been a supersonic jet too. But I prefer to believe the Bible.

You haven't addressed the resurrection of the two prophets of Revelation 11. You totally ignore them.
--But you have failed in your answer "just one more." Your previous answer was "just one." You were wrong.

 

Matthew, Matthew, what is your problem?

Either your memory is faulty or you are simply being misleading. I have always said there are two resurrections and only two. The FIRST is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Second is the resurrection of ALL the dead as God tells us in John 5:28, 29.

You can believe as you choose but actually you don't believe the Bible. You have put the pre-trib-doctrine of John Nelson Darby ahead of Scripture. That doctrine claims the Church, for which Jesus Christ endured the Cross, is a "parenthesis", an interruption, in God's program for apostate Israel. And that is the sad truth.

There is not a single passage of Scripture that supports the John Nelson Darby pre-trib-dispensational doctrine. Show us one passage of Scripture, just one, that clearly teaches a pre-trib removal of the Church. Show us one passage of Scripture, just one, which teaches that the Church, for which Jesus Christ endured the Cross, is a "parenthesis", an interruption, in God's program for apostate Israel. You cannot do it for they do not exist!

 

Your problem is either a denial of scripture or you don't know how to answer it: which one?
Yes Matthew!
Here it is:
[FONT=&quot]Matthew 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.[/FONT]
--the bodies of the saints arose and appeared to many. That is what the Bible says! Do you believe it or not.
I note your "could it be answer," that simply doubts the veracity of the Bible:

The above is both: unbelief, denial and doubt all rolled in one. It is unacceptable.

That is not how you previously worded your position.

The sad truth is false innuendos and accusations which are not true but you keep on posting them anyway. This is unbecoming of a Christian.
1. I have never read Darby. Your accusation is false.
2. I have never heard of a "parenthesis church," of which you accuse me of believing nor have I ever admitted to believing in one. In fact I don't even believe in a universal church. So your accusation is entirely false and wrong. You need to apologize and repent.

I don't have to. I am not a follower of Darby. Until you get off that hobby horse of yours I don't have much to say to you.

 

I have corrected you before on Darby not being the one to originate the Pre-Trib Rapture. You are either ignorant or simply deceptive, but once more I will show you again this is not true:

From Wayoflife.org:
MORGAN EDWARDS (1722-1795)

The pre-tribulation Rapture was taught by prominent Baptist leader Morgan Edwards. His Two Academical Exercises on the Subjects Bearing the Following Titles; Millennium and Last-Novelties was published in 1744 in Philadelphia.

Morgan Edwards was one of the most prominent Baptist leaders of his day. He was the pastor of the Baptist church in Philadelphia and the founder of Brown University, the first Baptist college in America. A summary of life was featured in the Baptist Encyclopedia. He was one of the first Baptist historians of repute, his Materials Toward A History of the Baptists (1770) providing a foundation for all subsequent works.

Following is what Edwards believed about Bible prophecy:

“The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years. I say, somewhat more; because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ’s ‘appearing in the air’ (I Thes. iv. 17); and this will be about three years and a half before the millennium, as we shall see hereafter: but will he and they abide in the air all that time? No: they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many ‘mansions in the father's house’ (John xiv. 2), and disappear during the foresaid period of time. The design of this retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints; for ‘now the time is come that judgment must begin,’ and that will be ‘at the house of God’ (I Pet. iv. 17)” (Edwards, Two Academical Exercises on the Subjects Bearing the Following Titles; Millennium and Last-Novelties, 1744).

EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN (AD c. 303-373)

We now go back to two centuries after the apostles. Ephraem is venerated as a “saint” by the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but they would not allow him to teach his doctrine of prophecy today.

Ephraem is called “the Syrian” because he lived in that region.

He was a voluminous writer. Many of his sermons and psalms are included in the 16-volume Post-Nicene Library. (The Council of Nicea was held in AD 325, and historians divide the “fathers” into Ante-Nicene, before 325, and Post-Nicene, after 325).

Some of Ephraem’s sermons and hymns are used in the liturgy of Orthodox churches.

In the 1990s some of Ephraem’s writings were translated into English for the first time, one of these being On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World, A.D. 373.

The translation was done by Professor Cameron Rhoades of Tyndale Theological Seminary at the bequest of Grant R. Jeffrey. It was subsequently published in Jeffrey’s 1995 book Final Warning.

It is obvious that Ephraem believed in a literal fulfillment of prophecy, including a Rapture of New Testament saints prior to the Tribulation.

“For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins” (Ephraem the Syrian, On the Last Times).


...You no longer have an excuse to use the Darby excuse, and if I see you use it again I am going to call you our for your lying.

 

There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that these people were resurrected with glorified bodies. In fact Scripture indicates otherwise:

1 Corinthians 15:20-21
20. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
24. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

The above Scripture shows that Jesus Christ is the First Resurrection and there are no more resurrections until He returns. He has not yet returned so there have been no resurrections but His! For your information Jesus Christ was resurrected with a glorified body. That is what is necessary for a Biblical resurrection.

As for the "could it be the answer" I was simply having fun at dispensational expense! Please note my original comment:

My position has always been that Jesus Christ is the FIRST RESURRECTION and that will be followed by the resurrection of all the dead as God states clearly in John 5:28, 29. If you can prove otherwise then do so.

I don't care whether you have read Darby or not. You claim to be a classic pre-trib-dispensationalist. I have spelled out two grievous errors of Darby the inventor of pre-trib doctrine which includes the doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church.

Great! You have never said anything worthwhile anyhow!

 

You post no link. However, Thomas Ice would disagree with you and I gave a link. You can find his writings on Darby easily. Call him a liar. I am sure he would really be upset!

Now it is a fact that history shows Darby is the inventor of pre-trib dispensationalism. If you can demonstrate that the preacher you mentioned is credited as being the inventor of pre-trib-dispensationalism then please do so! I certainly would not accuse Darby of doctrinal theft!

That being said, regardless of who teaches pre-trib-removal of the Church they cannot support it by a single passage of Scripture. Can you? If so then do so!

 

There is nothing BUT SCRIPTURE to say that they were not raised from the dead. It says "they arose." That is a plain statement of scripture not to be denied with unbelief. What do you think it means: "they arose...they appeared to others..." Did the others see "ghosts" OR? What?

1 Corinthians 15:20-21
20. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
24. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

Look carefully at what you posted:

Christ the firstfruits;

Firstfruits has a slightly different meaning than "first."

 

John 11:43. And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

Jesus Christ told Lazarus to "come forth". Lazarus "arose" and "came forth." He appeared to Mary, Martha, and the rest of the folks! Did they see a ghost? Did Lazarus have a glorified body? Did he die again?