history lesson

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by jilphn1022, Oct 16, 2007.

  1. jilphn1022

    jilphn1022
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,273
    Likes Received:
    0
    For 1800 years the rapture was tied to the start of the Day of the Lord - both in a posttrib setting. Even after pretrib arose in 1830, pretrib leaders including Darby and Scofield held to a posttrib DOL Posttribs began charging them with a big disconnect. To remedy things, early in the 20th century William Pettingill began to stretch the DOL forward and hook it up with his pretrib rapture. Again the posttribs had a field day and pointed out, as Scofield had truthfully claimed, that the DOL couldn't begin until after the Antichrist, and Elijah, and the posttrib sun/moon darkening (see his Rev. notes). In order to escape the "disconnect" charge, pretribs began to assert that the falling away in II Thess. 2 is really the rapture. Since the DOL includes the "gathering" (rapture) in vs. 1, anyone claiming that the falling away is the rapture is really saying that the rapture (vs. 1) can't happen unless the rapture (vs. 3) happens first - a truly nonsensical thought! If anyone wants to see mountains of recently found facts about how the pretrib rapture view came about, "The Rapture Plot" (Armageddon Books) will turn him inside out! And many leading evangelical scholars have endorsed it. Just my two cents.
     
  2. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Yeah, it would be amusing, if it wasn't so sad--the bizarre lengths folks go to in coming up with ever more creative..(ahem)..."interpretations" of scripture to bolster a doctrine that was just invented in the 1800 (let alone the effort some folks on this message board expend defending this imaginary doctrine!) :tear:
     
    #2 Doubting Thomas, Oct 17, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 17, 2007
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting revisionism.
    Within the pre-millinnial Second Advent of Jesus,
    the popularity of the 'pretribulation rapture' predates
    the popularity of the 'post-tribulation rapture only'.
    (the a-mill /the Messanic Millinnial Kingdom
    is spiritual/ insite has a group that believe in a literal
    Second Coming but then the world ends.
    This viewpoint comes from practically the
    reformation.)

    So to tell all the history lesson, we would have
    to dis the 'post-tribulation rapture only' theory.

    I'd like to ask you to give the points from the Bible
    that show your eschatology. Not the Eschatolgy
    of Eschatology teachers but your own
    Eschatology. The pretribulation rapture teacher
    Tim LaHaye's best book is called HOW TO STUDY
    THE BIBLE FOR YOURSELF (Harvest House
    Publishers, 1998).

    That came out in the late 1970s also.
    I used it to develop my eschatology
    (by prayer & Bible Study).
    I'm teaching my eschatology at the following two
    places in this Forum:

    Pre-tribulation rapture

    http:/www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=42747


    #2 The Pre-Tribulation Rapture (PRT)
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=43965



    I respectfully disagree.
    The DOL does not include the 'gathering'.
    They are two seperate events.

    2 Thessalonians 2:1 :(KJV1611 Edition):
    Now wee beseech you, brethren, by the comming
    of our Lord Iesus Christ,
    and
    by our gathering together vnto him,

    This and connects two sets of events
    that have various purposes and meanings,
    objectives and results.

    You believe the gathering together is
    a subset of the comming of our Lord;
    I do not.
     
    #3 Ed Edwards, Oct 17, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 17, 2007
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Thanks for pointing that out -- excellent!

    Also they run into the problem of Rev 20:4-5 where "The FIRST Resurrection" must be "reworked" and turned into the "The SECOND First resurrection" or as Ed likes to call the FIRST Resurrection - "resurrection2"

    One has to wonder how high a mountain of contradictions and inconsistencies they are willing to embrace on behalf of that recent invention.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ed is correct about one thing -- no matter what the Bible says the earnest beliver in the PTR has to believe that the gathering comes BEFORE the appearing of Christ - before his coming again and so is not even part of it as he points about above.



    That is yet "another" great red flag for anyone who believes in PTR --

    (I say that while admitting that the PTR view is the most popular one on this board and is not something Ed started or Ed can be blamed for)

    Note --
     
    #5 BobRyan, Oct 20, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 20, 2007
  6. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who are the Elect in the following Bible verses ( Mt 24)?

    1) Jewish Believers who repented after the Rapture of the whole Church.
    In this case the Jews repented without any preachers, for themselves, after the whole church is raptured which include even the Messianic Jews.

    2) Jewish Believers and the Gentile Believers who were preached by the Post-Rapture Jewish Believers, who all repented explosively, and were saved explosively during the short period of 7 years despite the persecution by the Anti-Christ, though the Revelation 9:20-21, 16:11 say the rest of the people would not repent their deeds.

    3) The Believers of the church which are to be raptured, Both of Jewish and Gentile Christian Believers. In this case the scene of verse 31 should mean the scene of Rapture

    4) The Believers of the Church which are left behind the Rapture, Both Jewish and Gentile Christian Believers.
    In this case the Rapture may have occurred to only a limited number of Believers and is not mentioned in the previous verses.


    Which group of the people the ELECT will be among the above 4 groups?

    If you do not find the right answer and have another alternative, please let me know.

    Question :
    If the Rapture takes place before the Tribulation, the Unprecedented Tribulation, where is it mentioned in the chapter of Matt 24 since the Rapture of the whole church is the most important? Isn't it more important than any other events in the world history of 2000 years if we have to believe the Rapture of the whole church? Where is it?

    Matt 24:
    15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. 23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. 29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

    Does the word " gather together" (episunago) in 2 Thess 2:1 mean the Rapture?


    If anyone is really confident with his or her Eschatology, he/she must be able to answer the questions very clearly.
     
    #6 Eliyahu, Oct 20, 2007
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2007
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    My vote is --

    3) The Believers of the church which are to be raptured, Both of Jewish and Gentile Christian Believers. In this case the scene of verse 31 should mean the scene of Rapture
     
  8. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    //Does the word " gather together" (episunago)
    in 2 Thess 2:1 mean the Rapture?//

    IMHO - yes

    IMHO the (episunago) in Matthew 24:31
    means the rapture2 also.

    IMHO the following examples of the Coming of Jesus
    in power; (resurrection 2) terminology is bolded, the
    gathering of God's Church Age saints (rapture2)
    is underlined.
    The seperating AND (Greek 'Kai') is writ red
    and large.

    Mat 24:30-31 (KJV1611 Edition):
    And then shall appeare the signe of the Sonne of man
    in heauen: and then shall all the Tribes of
    the earth mourne, and they shall see
    the Sonne of man comingin the clouds of heauen,
    with power and great glory.

    31 And hee shall send his Angels with a great sound
    of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his Elect
    from the foure windes, from one end of heauen to the other.

    2Th 2:1 Now wee beseech you, brethren, by the comming
    of our Lord Iesus Christ,
    and by our gathering together vnto him,

    In both cases, the resurrection2 and the rapture2
    (with variant descriptures) are described and joined
    by an AND meaning two seperate sets of events.
    The two events are mentioned in other scirptures.
    I'll be writing this up as time permits
    (Monday is shot with Dental & Mental doctors).
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    In all cases you have "some explainin' to do".

    Explaining why "the coming of the Lord and our gathering" should be read as "our Gathering together to him and then LATER the coming of the Lord"

    Or why the "First resurrection" of Rev 20 should be read as "In fact the first actual resurrection and rapture comes 7 years before this event-- then at this event we have resurrection2 but we would like to call the entire set of events The First Resurrection here".

    Or why would it is that when we John 14 "IF I go away... I will come again and receive you to Myself" John 14:1-3 we should wrench it around into the following

    "IF I go away... I will RECEIVE you to Myself at some point and then LATER I will come again" Myth 14:1-3

    Basically you have to provide some hand-waiving and a round of word-parsing, text re-ordering word-inserting to get the text to come around to what you needed it to say to start with.

    I do not doubt the creative spirit, the ingenuity, the capacity and potential of the human spirit to come up with such convoluted solutions -- my argument is simply that at some point the unbiased objective reader will notice that time after time your view is forced to come up with that long winding path to solve each of the problems it faces.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #9 BobRyan, Oct 20, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 20, 2007
  10. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm busy, I'm going to ignore this mal-formed mis-information
    posing as history :(

    The addreses where I'm posting aren't hard to find
    if you want to talk to me.

    I'll answer post #9 in the #2 PTR thread.
    I'm boycotting this topic due to too many topics going
    on at once. I also have a great lack of opportunity to
    teach logic to everybody.
     
    #10 Ed Edwards, Oct 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2007
  11. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ed Edwards
    "I used it to develop my eschatology (by prayer & Bible Study). I'm teaching my eschatology at the following two places in this Forum:..."

    GE
    Yes, Ed, that's why this thread was opened, I'm sure. I have two beginning-problems with your 'eschatology'
    One. That you haven't given any idea of what 'eschatology' means for you.
    Two. That it is your, Ed Edwards', 'eschatology' which EE out of hand has decided shall be his and nobody else's. It's never Ed Edwards and the Bible only, because it is EE first and next the Bible. To put the Bible first, I, or Ed Edwards, must be put next or better still, last, so that others, may be allowed to have a turn to speak, too. If not heard in the Church, it is not the Word of God; it's 'my' own vice I hear and obey.
     
  12. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
    BR
    "I say that while admitting that the PTR view is the most popular one on this board and is not something Ed started or Ed can be blamed for".

    GE
    Are you afraid the 'honour' goes to Ed, and not to the SDA's? However, most popular on this Board? or on this forum - 'Other denominations'? First get your facts straight.
     
  13. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
    GE: "... it's my own vice I hear and obey" --- I decided not to make correction; it turned out better than I intended ...
     
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    True - it does not derive from the early church and appears to be challenged by scripture at every key point - but as noted in the history of PTR - it's connection going back to the 16th century is traced here.
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1116224&postcount=80


    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #14 BobRyan, Oct 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2007
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed Edwards
    "I used it to develop my eschatology (by prayer & Bible Study).
    I'm teaching my eschatology at the following two places in this Forum:..."

    GE
    Yes, Ed, that's why this thread was opened, I'm sure.
    I have two beginning-problems with your 'eschatology'
    One. That you haven't given any idea of what 'eschatology' means for you.
    Two. That it is your, Ed Edwards', 'eschatology' which EE out of hand has decided shall be his and nobody else's. It's never Ed Edwards and the Bible only, because it is EE first and next the Bible. To put the Bible first, I, or Ed Edwards, must be put next or better still, last, so that others, may be allowed to have a turn to speak, too. If not heard in the Church, it is not the Word of God; it's 'my' own vice I hear and obey.

    Oops, Sir, you totally missed what I was trying to communicate.

    It is God's Eschatology that I got from studying the Bible.
    I only called it 'mine' to distinguish from the history of the
    first post. Although I've studied some history (the opening post
    is largely wrong) I have never read a book by John Darby.
    So I was trying to show that my Eschatology was NOT from
    John Darby or anybody else except: Peter, Paul, John,
    Daniel, King David, Solomon, etc. -- you know, those guys
    who wrote God's Bible.

    So what I was trying to communicate there is that I didn't copy
    someone else's eschatology, especially John Darby.
    (BTW, the history of the two branches of 'post-tribulation
    resurrection2 ONLY -- one of them comes long after John Darby.
    In fact, the Opening Post (OP) was written BY SOMEBODY
    not on the BB (Baptist Board) and thoughtlessly copied here
    -- about 1950. It is NOT an orginal writing. I could figure out
    where it came from and get the bosses around here to get on
    the case of the OP maker - but that isn't always my style.

    So I didn't, unlike others, copy some other eschaatological
    plan, but developed my own.

    I said I was teaching the Eschatology that God's Bible intrusted
    to me two other places (actually about eight now) in hopes
    people would come over to one of the other topics.
    I can keep all the topics open at once (lovely tab system of
    Mozilla Firefox) but the titles get to be 4 letters long when I have
    a dozen open.

    So I was trying to say I got these teachings from the
    Holy Bible, not from someone else save God and the human
    authors of the New Testament & Old Testament.
    I would also rather write this stuff in less than eight topics.
    Thank you, Sir Gerhard Ebersoehn, for your input.
     
  16. jilphn1022

    jilphn1022
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,273
    Likes Received:
    0
    History of pre-tribulation

    Thanks Ed! I want to keep this thread on the subject of the history. All of you posters have done well to present your interpretations of the Bible. I do not think that we can revise history like we can in interpretating the Scripture.

    So please let us continue to keep this thread on the subject namely the history of the pre-tribulation rapture.


    QUOTE=Ed Edwards]I'm busy, I'm going to ignore this mal-formed mis-information
    posing as history :(

    The addreses where I'm posting aren't hard to find
    if you want to talk to me.

    I'll answer post #9 in the #2 PTR thread.
    I'm boycotting this topic due to too many topics going
    on at once. I also have a great lack of opportunity to
    teach logic to everybody.[/QUOTE]
     
  17. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regardless of what "interpretation" one believes, it is revisionist history to slyly suggest that the teaching of a 'pre-trib' rapture, or 'dispensationalism', in general, "was just invented in the 1800", which is no more true, than suggesting that "preterism", "a-millenialism", "post tribulation rapture, pre-millenialism", "post-millenialism" or "historic millenailism", to use several broad categories of positions, are 'late inventions'. All of them have been around since the days of the early church. Granted some have more favor than others, at various times. The unspoken dig directed in the general direction of John Nelson Darby is simply not true. The Mathers, among others, preached some of this in the USA long before Darby was even born, and in fact, one individual, who happened to be a Baptist, whose name escapes me at this moment, and I do not want to take an hour to find it, preached this in my area, before 1800, and probably in my own home church (My home church was constituted in 1782, and is the 3rd oldest extant Baptist church "west of the Alleghenies".), as he held meetings in the area, around 1785-90. Darby was not born until 1800. So please get it right. No 'revisionist' history, here, please.

    These facts do not make this or any such (or any other, for that matter) doctrine correct, but they do, in fact, make it historical, which is my concern, here.

    Ed
     
  18. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    Philip Schaff (1877)
    "Though millenialism was supressed by the early church, it was nevertheless from time to time revived by heretical sects." (Schaff's History, pg. 299 )

    http://www.christinyou.net/pages/millennium.html
    II. Historical review of millennial thinking in Christian theology.
    A. Early church (c. 100-250) - millennium not emphasized. Variety of views.

    B. Early reaction to view of earthly millennium.

    1. Origen (c. 185-254) attributed such thinking to heretic, Cerinthus

    2. Montanist heresy (c.175) had excesses of earthly millennial views.

    3. Rampant speculation to calculate end time.

    C. Augustine (354-430) rejected his previous earthly millennial position and interpreted

    "1000 years" of Rev. 20 as symbolic of entire period from first coming of Christ to

    second coming of Christ.

    1. Council of Ephesus (431) condemned earthly millennium interpretation as heretical

    superstition.

    2. Became orthodox view of Church for centuries.

    D. Reformation (sixteenth century) - Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Anabaptists accepted symbolic

    interpretation of "1000 years." Regarded Catholic Pope as Antichrist.

    E. Seventeenth - nineteenth centuries - gradually revived earthly millennium view.

    F. Nineteenth & twentieth centuries.

    1. J.N. Darby (Plymouth Brethren), followed by D.L. Moody, C.I. Scofield, H.A. Ironside

    (Dallas Theological Sem.), developed theological system of Dispensationalism

    incorporating earthly millennium and pre-tribulation rapture of Church. Became a

    primarily American theological phenomenon.

    2. Majority of theological community (Post-millennial and Amillennial) has regarded

    Dispensationalism as a modernist aberrational (disorder of the mind) interpretation.
     
    #18 Brother Bob, Oct 22, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2007
  19. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    No less than four times have I brought to your attention that there are historical errors in this list, and mentioned the disparaging pejorative crack of the last sentence. Yet you continue to post this. Is there a good reason for this??

    I have not once suggested that one has to believe any of the doctrines of dispensationalism, nor that to not believe such is anything less than orthodox. In fact, I have specifically said that these doctrines are not necessarily right (even though I believe they are basically Biblical), and that the existence of such, even from the earliest days does not make them (or any other doctrine, for that matter) correct.

    But, once again, it does make them historical. (Since that seems to be such a 'hard concept' for some to grasp.) :rolleyes:
    I still have yet to see that any Biblical doctrine is established by a poll of "most preferred".

    Ed
     
  20. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    OP (Opening Post):
    //For 1800 years the rapture was tied to the start of the Day of the Lord ... //

    Most pretribulation rapture2 theories still
    tie the rapture2 to the start of the 'Day of the Lord'.
    They tie the post-tribulation resurrection2
    with the end of the 'Day of the Lord'.
    (Personally I think there are three different
    kinds of 'Day of the Lord', but I'm still working
    on that essay.)

    OP (Opening Post):
    //Even after pretrib arose in 1830, pretrib leaders
    including Darby and Scofield held to a posttrib DOL
    Posttribs began charging them with a big disconnect.//

    Uh, the Post-tribs didn't exist until the 1940s & 1950s;
    Scofield published about 1920 -- this time disconect
    seems to invalidate "Posttribs began charging
    them with a big disconnect"

    in the Dictionary of Premillennial Theology
    (Kregel, 1996) the Post-tribulation Viewpoint
    article lists no book published prior to 1943:
    "The Sure Word of Prophecy, ed.
    John W. Bradbury (New York: Revell, 1943)
     

Share This Page

Loading...