Do Posttribs have trouble populating the millennium?

Ed,

As to your reply about me being raised in Dispensationalist churches and not being taught well I have this to say. I was taught very well, according to what historic Dispensationalism has taught.

As far your statement that "the dual rapture therory has NOTHING to do with Dispensationalism" you could not be more wrong from a historical perspective.

Let define the term though so those watching this discussion can understand. If you mean by Dispensationalist that we believe in different dispensations of time or stewardships that God dealt differently with believers then Historic Premillennialists like myself could be considered Dispensationalists(because we believe that).

If you mean 'Dispensationalist' in the historical sense, than that definition is different. A Dispensationalist in this sense has two distinctives from which all of his theology is seen through - the distinction of Israel(saved physical Jews) and (saved non-physical jews). Right now during the 'church age' as they it, there is not distinction between physical saved jews and physical saved gentiles. But they believe the wall of separation will be raised again in the millennium.

The other distinction is that of a pre-tribualional rapture of the church. There is much historic argument about which came first - it kind of like the chicken and egg. Most Dispensationalists will say this second distinction rises from the first distinction of Israel andthe church.

Anyway, my point is that Dispensationalists who believe in postrib rapture is a late development with the rise of Progressive Dispensationalists in the 1980's. Before that you cannot show me any Dispensationalist writer or preacher who taught a Posttrib rapture of the church - it goes against the heart of the system.

That is why many normal Dispensationalists teachers today believe the Progressives should not even be able to be called Dispensationalists, since they in essense reject the heart of Dispensationalist teachings like the distinction of Israel and the Church. They believe the church is made up of believers of all ages as we historic premillennialists believe.

If you can come up with a Dispensationalist before the 1980's who believed in a postrib rapture that would be great, I would love to see it.

As far as you studying these passages for 52 years that great. I am glad you have immersed yourself in God's Word. Having said that, there were great Bible teachers and preachers thoughout history who studied the scriptures their whole lives but could never overcome their own presuppositions. Take great preachers like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, they could never see that infant baptism was unscriptural and I am sure they were quite immersed in the Word.

So really, time is not much of an issue. I have been studying these passages for 10 years and I do not claim to be inerrant in my understanding. However I saw that passages Dispensationalists quote don't support what they say they do. It is when we are willing to question what we have been taught that we become stronger. If it is truth, it will remain truth. Any truth we have been taught must be tested, it must be retested by each new generation to make sure those who came before us were not just rapped up in a "fad" doctrine.

Dispensationalism was the fad doctrine of the late 1800's and early 1900's. In fact it is ironic that men who assisted in the making of the Scofield Study Bible(which was a huge cause of the spread of Dispensationalism throughout America in the early 1900's) later rejected it. They say it for what it was, a "fad" doctrine that upon closer examination falls apart.

As to your quoting this passage:

I agree that we should stand fast in the doctrines that the Apostles and Prophets wrote in their epistles and books - the Word of God. But this does not mean we should stand fast in the doctrines our church or Bible college taught. If they can be tested and found to built solidly on the teachings of the scripture, then keep them, if they are found to be fad doctrines of a previous generation, then we must reject them.

IFBReformer

 

Ed,

I agree that there is no verse stating expressly who the citizens of the Millennial Kingdom will be. But then there is no verse that expressely states "there will be a resurection of saints before the Tribulation" and you believe that. You believe that because you see other verses that lead you to believe that, even though it is not expressely stated.

We all do a little reasonable deductions in our prophectic systems, we take some passages and interpret others with them, that is the nature of Biblical interpretation - no one can escape that reality.

I am not quite sure of what you are saying here. Do you believe the "day" of 2 Peter 3:10 is a literal 24 hour day or is it a period of time? Let me know.

IFBReformer

 

Ed,

Matthew 24:29-41(NIV)
"29"Immediately after the distress of those days
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'

30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left."

Ed,
I have never seen anyone cut up Matthew 24 the way you just did. Wow!

You don't like the chronolgy of the passage so you cut it up and reorganize it the way you want. Do you see what you are doing? Anyone taking this passage at face value could not interpret it the way you do.

What part of "Immediately after the distress of those days...At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other".

It amazes me how you can cut out verse 31 and put it before verses 29-30.

Wow, wow wow....

IFBReformer

 

Ed,

The blessed hope I wait for IS the glorious second coming of my Savior Jesus Christ.

The blessed hope I wait for is found in these passages:

1 Corinthians 1:7(NIV)
"Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed."

2 Thessalonians 1:6-10(NIV)
"6God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels.8He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power 10on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you."

I would encourage anyone following this discussion to look up these verses Ed states. Please look for this distinction that Ed says there is in these verses.

See if you can find in any of these passages where it states there is a separate resurection of saints before the Great Tribulation. I could save you some time and tell you there is not one, but you need to see this for yourself.

Ask yourself if Ed and other Dispenationalists are not reading in what they want to see.

Then when you get done, Read Matthew 24, the entire chapter from the first verse to the last verse. After that read Revelation 19-21 straight though, if you accept the order of all these verses, and at face value, and do not cut them up and rearrange them as Ed did previously, then you will see exactly what I am talking about.

IFBReformer

 

One other thing I wanted to mention for those watching this discussion.

Try and find one place in the New Testament where it speaks of 'comings' plural of Christ. Implying that there is more than one coming. You won't find it anywhere.

I know these discussions on prophecy can sometimes become endless and seem pointless to continue.

I don't necessarily have them to change people like Ed(even though I pray he will), I do it to help new Christians and those who have not really looked at this as closely see through these teachings of Dispensationalism so they will know the truth of God in these matters of eschatology.

IFBReformer

 

YOUR STATEMENT

MY RESPONSE:
While you don't realize it you are forcing Matthew 25 into Revelation 19-21 as well. You just force it in somewhere before the between chapters 19 and 20. I simply accept the natural place of it at the end of chapter 20 where it speaks of God judging the World - so who is being more careless here?

Once again, a critical nail in the coffin of your variety or any variety of Dispensationalism is you not accepting Revelation 19-21 as God giving us how the story ends.

Instead since you don't like how the story ends, you tell the people in your churches that John just left out the judgements before the millennium and he left out a pretribulational rapture. When he said it was "the first resurection", it was not really the first, but the first type - so I ask you again, who is handling the scriptures so carelessly?

I might agree with your thinking on passages, especially Old Testament passages and some new before the book of Revelation. But Revelation is the final Written word of God, it even has a warning against those who would add to it. You have only to read those last three chapters and accept them as they are - God's telling us how the story ends.

Then we take what God has told us previously to this final revelation and we understand it in light of this final revelation. The choice is yours.

YOUR STATEMENT:

MY RESPONSE:
I sometimes think Dispensationalists would better be called "Distinctionalists". You make distinctions where there are none. I would say that you are exactly the opposite of those who hold to a Historic Premillennial view in that you take an cut up eschatological events and make the same event into two and sometimes three different things. You also deal with scripture backwards in that you try and reinterpret clear New Testament passages with more vague and earlier Old Testament passages.

This really is the watershed between us, we interpret the New with the Old, and you interpret the Old with the New Testament.

YOUR STATEMENT:

MY RESPONSE:
Actually I have presented several texts that any observer of our conversation could look up. Matthew chapter 24 and Revelation 19-20 just to name some. I encouraged those observing our conversation to look through the passages Ed stated to see if any of them said there is a seperate resurection before the tribulation. Nobody seems to have found one.

You guys have not shown me one. I have have shown you clear passages like Matthew 24 and Ed(and may you) do the most ridiculous cutting up and rearranging of Matthew 24 that I have ever seen.

So who is trying to cover their flaws.

IFBReformer

 

I know you really believe this, but this statement demonstrates you really don't know what we believe. You wish you could put all dispies in the same Scofield model.

NEWS FLASH: the Scofield model doesn't have the copyright on dispensationalism. </font>[/QUOTE]Daniel,
I said this completely backwards of what I meant:

I originally said:
"This really is the watershed between us, we interpret the New with the Old, and you interpret the Old with the New Testament."

What I meant to say was:
"This really is the watershed between us, we interpret the Old with the New, and you interpret the New with the Old Testament."

Daniel, lets be clear then on what you believe?

Do you believe the church as you define it [a group of believers from the time of Christ to the before the tribulation starts] will be raptured just before the start of that tribulation? Yes or No

Whether you agree with Scofield on other areas is not important to me, the two issues that are important to me is how you define the church and if you believe in a pretribulational rapture.

So if you can answer this I think we can move on.

IFBReformer