Historic Baptist Views on the Second Coming

That's correct.

Suppose, you are in the time machine, set the date back to November 23, 1750 from the place, where you are right now. Click the time machine on, travel from November 23, 2004 backward to November 23, 1750. Then, finally you arrived in that date. Then, you walking into a baptist church in the service time. And listening to a baptist pastor preaching on the second coming. Baptist pastor saying, 'We must suffer tribulations into the kingdom of God, because Christ suffered on the cross according to Acts 14:22. The resurrection of the saints cannot be occured till the last day of the age occurs in John 6:39,40,44, & 54..."

Then, you would be puzzled, and saying this baptist church cannot be pretrib & premill. This church must be wrong doctrine. So, you walking and ask baptist pastor, 'When the Rapture will occured?' Baptist pastor would saying to you, "What are you talking about?" Then, you asked him, 'Do you understand what the word 'rapture' means?' Then, a pastor would saying to you, 'Yes, it means joy.' Then, you would saying to him, 'No, no, I am talking about the second coming'. Then, a pastor would saying to you, 'Rapture have do nothing with the second coming.' You would saying to him, 'YES! Rapture have do with the second coming.' and show pastor of 1 Thess 4:15-18. Pastor would saying to you, "Yes I got it, what you are talking about, yes we all believe Christ will come again, but, first all dead in Christ must be resurrection then remain and alive shall be caught up to meet Christ in the air, that would at Lord's coming at the last day of the age.' Then, you would saying to him, 'Wait a minute, you saying rapture will be at the last day of the age, that mean, we shall go through tribulation first?' Pastor would saying to you, yes. On and on........


Obivously, all baptists in America during 18th Century were posttribs and either postmil or amil.

Premil/pretrib was not yet introduce to America till John Darby visited America from Great Britian, trying to spread his new teaching in the mid to late of 19th Century.

Baptists in America started to adopt pretribulation doctrine in year around 1870's. Then pretrib doctrine was spreading over baptist churches in America so fast at the dawn of 20th Century. Today, about 95% of baptist churches in America teaching on pretribulation doctrine.

See? The history shows us, the doctrine of Church have been changing lot within last 200 years.

Now, we are in great apostasy, because there are so many false teachings and teachers spread over America, know we are in the last days, as the LAST day draws closer.

We have to sticky with God's Word, back to old time teaching of the second coming. Stay on the same old fashion preaching on repentance.

That why Christians caused moral lives in America decling faster, because of itching ears, and do want to endure with sound doctrines, go in their own lust and ways.

Oldregular is correct, that baptists in America more than 200 years, all were posttrib and postmil/amil because they believed the general resurrection will be occured on the last day of the age, simple, no complex.

Fact telling us, throughout 18 Centuries, Christians believed there shall be a general resurrection on the last day of the age.

Today, many baptists doing their own attempt to have own guesswork interpreting on John 6:39,40,44, & 54 in different ways of meaning.

Actually, Early Christians understood what Christ actual saying according to John 6:39,40,44, & 54 means a SINGLE day is the final day of the age before the eternality begins. No excuse for today's baptists can read and understand what John chapter 6 is talking about.

We must sticky with God's Word, what it saying than what we listen to men's teaching according to Colossians 2:8.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

I never hear of W.A. Criswell before. Till recently, I doing surf W.A. Criswell on the internet. He was born in year 1909. He preached on premillennial during 20th Century.

Why not travel back to 18th Century, to see what baptist pastors saying by yourself?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Don't particularly care what they thought back then...people can be wrong in the past, the present, or the future.

The opinions and positions of those who have gone on before us are interesting to study, but what bearing should they have on where we are today? Zilch.

You believe amill? Your choice.

You believe postmill? Still, your choice.

Premill? Now, that is my choice.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Trotter,

I respect your beliefs, what you believe.

I ask you, do you actual understand of John 6:39,40,44, & 54 'last day' means?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

DeafPost,

Yes, I do. But I am afraid that you and I differ on that meaning.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

OldRegular,

Your point is?

I am not overly concern with how it is classified by anyone. I only call it like I see it. And I don't need a bunch of forerunners to back me up.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Trotter,

What 'Last day' of John 6:39,40,44, & 54 mean to you?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

DeafPost,

Jesus is speaking to a Jewish crowd in John 6:22-71. The Jews understood the term "last day" to mean the day of judgement. Jesus was speaking of salvation in terms that they could understand.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Trotter,

Yes, that is true, Christ was speaking to Jews crowd of John chapter 6, but, it also apply to us as Christians, that Christians who died in Christ, all shall be risen on the last day.

So, my point is, does Martha and other Jews know anything about 'a thousand years' or, so called, 'seven year of tribulation period' in their time?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

The Jews believed in one resurection, and that for the righteous only. But not the Sadducees, becaused they did not believe in a resurrection, period.

DPT, you are trying to twist these out of their context. How does what He said to a crowd of non-believing Jews apply to the believing, born-again church? Way too far a stretch, my friend.

If you notice, however, it was not the mention of being raised up on the last day (resurrection of the just) that offended the Jews, but rather the metaphor that Jesus used for belief in Himself. Why? Because they completely understood the reference to the "last day" for what it was.

This is how you understand the scriptures, DPT. You have to read them in their context. You have to study them in side of the narrative that they are a part of. And you have to see the plain truth that is conveyed by it. You cannot 'spiritualize' scripture by plucking it from its nativity and forcing it into a mold of your own choosing.

In Christ,
Trotter

PS- catch you tomorrow...I'm off to bed.

 

I would also point out that 6:44 and 6:63 speak to the moral inability of those persons who do not believe to come to Christ unless drawn by God, supporting the Reformed view of total depravity, which, DeafPostrib, you'd most likely not agree with given your views on eternal security. I would suggest you revisit your exegesis.

All that we can say about the resurrection, from this passage, is that there will be one, and the ones who will be raised up are the ones who a given by the Father / drawn by the Father and have thus been enabled to come to Christ and be saved. They are all the same persons.

Not one line of this passage speaks to a particular millenial view.

Personally, I'm a historic premillenialist. I disagree strongly with dispensational premillenialism, but that's largely because I disagree with dispensationalism as it is presented by Dake, et.al., and, yes I understand dispensationalism as a whole extremely well, having been taught it from the age of six to the age of eighteen in the Christian school I attended.

Baptists have never considered millenial views a matter over which to divide. In fact, they have always kept them to the side as a rather interesting intramural debate.

Personally, I have strong problems with the postmillenialism put forth by Pat Robertson and others these days (called Thenomic Postmillenialism), because it very clearly teaches that the Church is to Christianize the world in order to precipitate the Second Coming. Moreover, Robertson and others build much of their political views on that eschatology, because, by considering the US a "Christian nation," they do so in an eschatological sense, promoting real theocracy. This is wrong, and is not an eschatology worth endorsing.

 

Trotter,

No, no, I am not trying to twist out of its context on the whole John chapter 6, what it is talking about.

Earlier, Martha called Jesus come to healing Lazarcus, because he was dying. But, Christ does not come for 4 days, then lazarcus died. They were wept. So, Jesus wept also.

Fact, throughout in the Old Testament, Jews believed only one resurrection on the last day. None of 'A thousand years reign upon earth' being mentioned find anywhere in the Old Testament. Jews understood, the reusrrection shall be occured on the last day.

Christ told Jews, that He(Christ) shall rise person on the last day.

Yes, you are right that the Sadducees do not believe in resurrection. Christ told them, that He is the resurrection, and life. Christ gave the hope to the Jews.

John 5:27-29 is very clear teaching us, that Christ shall judge us all in the last day, some shall rise to everlasting punishment, some shall rise to everlasting life. John 5:27-29 support Daniel 12:1-2; & Matt 25:46 telling the same thing about the judgment day.

Christ never teaching anything about millennial to his disciples and Jews. Christ taught them, there shall be harvest at the end of the age - once, and there shall be resurrection on the last day, no other else.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

I understand of Calvinism, what they teaching on 'total depravity' & 'God draw all men to Christ', what they teaching.

They teach 'total depravity' means, all person born with sins, and all are crooked, they have no way able to reply back to God for salvation.

I agree that we all born with sins come from Adam according to Romans 5:12.

But, it does not mean that we cannot come to reply back to God for salvation. Romans 1:20 tells us, there is no excuse for a person who can see the things that God created, still do not believe in God.

A lost person shall reply back to God for salvation when AFTER hear the gospel first according to Romans 10:14.

My understand of John 6:44 speak of Jesus have power(omnipotent) to raise all people.

Also, notice John 5:27 says, "And hath given him(Christ) authority to execute judgment also, because HE is the Son of man."

John 5:27 tells us, God, the Father gave His Son, the authority to judge all people. That means, Christ is now exalted and sit on the right hand of God, the Father in heaven, that He have power to judge us.

John 5:27 same with 6:44 - 'Father which hath sent me draw him'- speak of God, the Father gave authority to Christ, that He have power to raise all people.

I do not agree with postmill. Church does not revolutionize the world into Christianity or becoming perfection state. Christ commands us to preach the gospel to all nations.

Bible teaches us, that there shall be rise of the apostasy over the world is worser daily throughout all centuries till the end of the age.

I hope that you understand what I am talking about according John 5:27 & 6:44.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Whether or not the Jews understood the millennium is not really important, DPT. They didn't understand that the Messiah had to come die for sin, either. But I think that they did have some idea of what they were looking for:

Heb 11
9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

They didn't have to understand it fully to have faith in the promise. It is not made clear to us in the NT until Revelation, where it is made abundantly clear that there are 2 resurrections.

Rev 20
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Should this really be open to interpretation? Just as any one should understand 'the last day', they should understand 'the first resurrection'.

 

I certainly don't think we MUST take something as fact because Jews in antiquity believed it as such. But to me the rapture and whole premill dispy thing always seemed "forced".