Pre-Trib - not strongly supported Biblically

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by FaithMan, Jan 17, 2004.

  1. FaithMan

    FaithMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am sure that this topic has been discussed in great detail. Please direct me to any past discussion concerning the pre-tribulation view. I do not believe that this position has a strong Biblical basis. Thanks.........Keep the Faith...
     
  2. Watchman

    Watchman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,706
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi FaithMan. I am tempted to add a bunch of Laughing Graemlins here, because you sure said an understatement!
    Seriously, instead of links to the discussions here, let me suggest something else. I see you are a student so you, no doubt, have a lot of books to deal with, but may I suggest a couple of more books?
    "Things to Come" by J. Dwight Pentecost and
    "Dispensationalism" by Charles Ryrie
     
  3. Tim

    Tim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2001
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    The bedrock foundation stone of the pretrib position is their tortured interpretation of Daniel 9.

    For a thourough understanding of the passage (that actually makes sense, imho) I would suggest reading "The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation" by Philip Mauro.

    Have we discussed it on BB before? Oh, yeah!
    To describe the spirit of the discussion, just choose/combine the following graemlins: [​IMG] :mad: :eek: :confused: [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Tim
     
  4. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd agree with that. I personally do not prefer the pretrib premill position. There is (some)support for this position in Daniel as well as 1 Thessalonians - although I see them as taking these verses out of appropriate context. Of note there does seem to be a good deal of support for the premill position in early church though - particularly Irenaeus.
     
  5. FaithMan

    FaithMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for the information. I am reading the books.........Keep the Faith.......
     
  6. David Mark

    David Mark
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I believe about this topic has the ability to influence the way I think about others. It has the ability to creep into my everyday conversations. What I believe on this matter has the ability to divide the brethren.

    I found myself on one side of this divisive topic and when I examined myself and my beliefs, I realized that for all the years I believed one way or another, I had never once asked God for wisdom on this matter. That is when I backed off promoting what I may not have truly understood.

    This was very difficult for me. But my new goal was: Finding some sort of unity with true believers and what it was that was making me part of the division problem.

    When I realized that I had never once asked for wisdom, I for the first time in my life began to ask God for wisdom on the matter.

    So, by speaking now, I am only promoting asking God for wisdom on such divisive topics.

    Thanks to those who have mentioned resources they have used.

    Dave. [​IMG]
     
  7. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do not believe that this position has a strong Biblical basis.

    Well, you are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else. Outside of the observation about Daniel 9 (I don't rightly know about it...gonna have to do some digging), the pre-trib position is as solidly set, if not mre so, than the other positions.

    Each of the diferent views take the claims of the other views and attack them. I have seen very few who even try to present Biblical backing for what they spout about.

    The pre-trib position is not expressed by a single verse, or even a single passage. It is seen when you take a panoramic view of the whole of the New Testament. The different facets of the doctrine sparkle with pinpoints of light from their respective places, but they are not lined up all neat and tidy like, say, passages on salvation or sin.

    I understand that people tend to see different things, no matter what the circumstance (just ask any policeman who has had to interview eye witnesses of an accident about what I'm talking about). Where I see Jesus calling up His church before the onslaught of the Tribulation period, another sees the same as metaphor. I will not judge their view, but I will oppose it.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  8. Tim

    Tim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2001
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dave,

    I appreciate the spirit of your post. I used to be pretrib/premil--it was all I had ever been taught. But when I was studying for the ministry and spending a lot of time in God's Word, I began to see things differently (I realize not everyone will see them my way, but I honestly did).

    Since then very few Pre-trib/Pre-Millers have even been willing to discuss eschatology with me, but rather, many only condemn my position without knowledge of it, refer me to a commentary or book, or even attempt to destroy my credibilty.

    Of those who pretribber friends who've taken the time to study other views--including my own (amil), some have actually been persuaded, and changed views (though I know of one who was later pressured to renounce it by a dispensational pastor).

    Most in the pre-trib/pre-mil camp are just unwilling to tolerate a diversity of views on this subject. I've even been refused church membership on the sole basis that I was amil.--and the pastor was the one who personally asked me to join!

    Unfortunately, eschatological debate is often more charged with emotion than enlightened by wisdom. But keep praying. Maybe someday we'll all be free to believe differently on this subject without breaking fellowship.

    Tim
     
  9. David Mark

    David Mark
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Tim,

    I had a ton of thoughts that took well over an hour to develop with the following paragraph at the end. I refrained from all of it and just left the last paragraph. [​IMG]

    Today, I was having fellowship with a friend that I had not seen in a while. We had lunch, and touched on so many scriptures that we agreed on. I was happy to be with him. He has been reading a new book he bought on The Revelation. During our discussion about the book he voluntarily mentioned his church's stance on the very topic in this thread. I took note of what he said but I did not say a word and we "moved on". He was only expressing his opinion and I knew he was not looking for different thoughts. The result of my holding back was continued fellowship, and a desire to meet again and no strife between us and I learned more about my friend.

    Dave.
     
  10. Tim

    Tim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2001
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dave,

    Again, I appreciate your viewpoint. In person I've learned to keep my mouth shut (though I haven't learned that here on BB yet). I can't tell you the number of times I've sat silently through a SS or other church discussion as others struggled to understand scriptures that didn't fit into their pretrib system. I've found it's easier to let them flounder than to be branded a leper myself, by proposing a reexamination of their eschatological assumptions. So I've effectively silenced myself, removed myself from teaching positions, etc. to try and keep the peace. But I must admit, somehow it doesn't seem like the ideal way to handle the situation.

    In Christ,

    Tim
     
  11. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tim, can you give me just ONE passage that pretribbers have a hard time with?
     
  12. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tim,

    I am pre-trib/pre-mill. I have been so since I accepted the Lord, but not becasue of what someone taught me. I found this by reading God's word.

    I understand that you hold to a different view, and that's cool with me. But, I too, would like to know the Scriptures that pre-tribs haev a hard time with. I would also be interested in the basis for your view, based on the Scriptures. I am not trying to draw you out into an arguement, but I would like to try to see how you came to believe what you hold to.

    But I will tell you, you will not change my views. I want to understand your stance, and how you got there. Thanks.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  13. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Not Tim, but I'll give some that pre-tribs I know can't make a good argument for.

    Matt 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds.28 Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

    Now most will say this(vs. 28) refers to the transfiguration 6 days later. However what do you do with verse 27 that speaks of coming with the angels and rendering judgement? The only explanation I get is vs. 27 speaks of the future(2000 years and counting) and vs. 28 speaks of 6 days later. Did some of those standing there see His coming with angels and judgement or not?

    Matt 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God.64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.

    So did Caiaphus see Him coming in the clouds or not?

    Revelation 11 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;2 who bare witness of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, even of all things that he saw.3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein: for the time is at hand.

    Now does "shortly" mean "shortly"? Does "at hand" mean "at hand"? If not can you show me any other instance where these words are used to mean other than what they say?
     
  14. David Mark

    David Mark
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand and I thank you. [​IMG]

    Your desire to keep the peace and your specific example of how you strive to do that, makes you a man of good character and mature to me.

    My time here, discussing things with you and others and in this "public" format, seems to make me more prepared when I meet with others face to face.

    It keeps me coming back and allows me to give spiritual value to the efforts of everyone here.

    Therefore I put much value on what you and everyone else here says.

    This BB give me a relatively safe place to discuss things. SS is not always set up for that and I recognize that and I don't use SS for that. I've learned that being ignored here or rather not always engaged on this board specifically, is not necessarily a bad thing. If I truly consider what I say as valuable or a good message, I will not fret if not engaged or agreed with. A good message is a good message. If my message causes strife or creates "sides" with the brethren, then for myself, I must consider whether or not I really have wisdom or whether I have others best interest at heart.

    It not only allows me to keep my mouth shut when appropriate, but I don't grumble within myself when not encouraged to speak in church, even though I want to say something.

    Whether there are many more mature folks here or that we just plain value the freedom to express our views, this place (to me) is resilient. I can say something wrong and even if it ruffles feathers, there is much more opportunity to work on repairing my reputation. It seems that in person, a damaged reputation is much more difficult to rebuild and a grudge developed can last for a long time. Seemingly much less here with you. I am very selective here with who I engage.

    Dave.
     
  15. Tim

    Tim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2001
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dave,

    Thanks for your input. I view personal relationships, especially within the church and family as different in nature than my relationships here on BB. If people object to my beliefs here, they can simply ignore me--not so in person.

    In Christ,

    Tim
     
  16. Tim

    Tim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2001
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    DD,

    I'd say that Daniel 2:44, 7:27 are two such passages. The eternal kingdom which destroys all others and is given to the saints of God began during the fourth kingdom, i.e. Rome.

    Daniel 9:24 is another. It mentions 70 "weeks"--a specific timetable. Inserting a gap of a couple thousand years within that timetable invalidates the timetable.

    And the gap problem comes up again in other OT prophecies, such as Isaiah 9:6,7, where the language doesn't justify a gap.

    (I think we went through this several months ago, didn't we?)

    I'm not expecting to change your mind, DD (or Trotter) just pointing out weaknesses I see in the position. My goal is not to pick a fight, but simply to allow pretribbers to see things from another perspective--in my experience, most haven't been seriously challenged to do so.

    Tim
     
  17. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tim, I believe the kingdom was inauguarated when Christ came the first time. I am still pretrib. What is the problem. Remember, not all pretribbers believe the nonsense of Larkin/Lahaye/Jenkins/Hagee. Only those who seek an esoteric understanding of God do.

    There is a gap of at least 40 years in that prophecy. Why didn't Daniel mention it? Answer: he didn't have to because he didn't see it. He just said the events would happen in this order. As far as I can tell, I believe that also. I am still pretrib.

    I realize nondispies bring up Daniel 9, but it is only to their detriment.

    Daniel says that the people of the prince to come would desecrate the city after the 69 weeks. Only after that does the 70th week take place. Interesting that 40 years take place between the Prince being cut off and the destruction of the Holy City. Interesting about that gap that Daniel doesn't mention. Interesting.
     
  18. DeafPosttrib

    DeafPosttrib
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm back! I haven't post at baptistboard.com for a long time.

    Pretribbers have hard time with a passage about Matthew chapter 24. They have hard time with deal on Matt. 24:29-31. So, pretribbers intepreting 'elect' means Jews. But, 'elect' really mean us as Christians according to 1 Peter 2:1. Also, pretribbers intepreting Matt 24:29-31 talk about the gathering of the Jews back to their land at the second coming. Actually, they are partially correct. Yes that will be happen that all Jews shall be gathering together at the second advent.

    But, Matt 24:29-31 clearly telling us, that Christians shall be gathering together at Lord's coming, same with 1 Thess. 4:15-17 and 2 Thess 2:1 too.

    I was myself pretribber before. Till I find troubles with the scriptures do not support pretrib doctrine, because these are not fit with pretrib doctrine. All of these are fit with posttrib doctrine very clear.

    Also, pretribulational doctrine was not teaching among churches till 19th Century. None of Early Christians teach on that, because they believed only one future coming of Christ.

    Pretribulational doctrine have much of flaws, and it is not fundamental.

    In Christ
    Rev. 22:20 - Amen!
     
  19. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Yes, but the Kingdom, second coming, resurrection and judgement are all tied together. If one happened, they all happened.
     
  20. Tim

    Tim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2001
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    DD,

    Daniel 9:24 lists the things that would take place within the seventy weeks. The statement about the prince that would come and destroy the city need not be included in the 70 weeks. It is simply a parenthetical elaboration of the further results of judgment which would fall upon Jerusalem.

    So there is no gap in the fulfillment of the seventy-week prophecy. Indeed there could not be--lest it be a prophecy of 76 weeks (including the ultimate judgment on Jerusalem) or 288 weeks and counting (in the pretrib. view).

    Daniel's concern was how would God keep His covenant with the Jews--He kept it within the seventy weeks in the ways that Dan. 9:24 details.

    In Christ,

    Tim
     

Share This Page

Loading...