Pre-Trib Premillennial Rapture

Amillennialist here...why don't you all stop arguing. You're all wrong!

 

I must agree with you firmly brother. But *Panmill*...that's a new twist. Kind of catchy. OK if I use it? LOL.
Those who are just die-hard premill-pretrib,have a problem explaining their methodology of exergesis when it comes to their 'problem texts'. Actually, they fail to see that their theory supports three and maybe four comings of Christ. Even from reading these posts it is easy to see that they start from the position that their premise is true and then discover so-called proof-texts to supply their empty volleys. This is NOT valid inquiry but, propaganda! It is the type of double-speak that makes unbelievers and weak believers walk away from any thing Christian. It's just too plain difficult to work out the gymnastics and rubber band formulae of the Pretrib scheme to make it believable to those who truly believe in the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus. It's like accepting Evolution as valid. It takes more faith to believe in it than it does Creation. Why? Because Creation is simple Bible and scientific fact and Evolution isn't. Likewise with this theory. It just ain't in the Book! Now let's see the Pavlov's subjects prove it. Or rather should I say...Big Brother (or Sister).
A later post tries to prove the validity of the premill theory by attempting to apply to the position of Athanasius and Polycarp and say that, by extension, this must have been the position of John. Not so. See what the writer is attempting to do. Just as I wrote above, he is starting off that his premise is true and is taking improper liberties with history itself to prove his point. Let's start with the history first. The truth is that Athanasius could lie, Polycarp could lie, even John when not inspired to write the Word of God could lie, but the Scriptures cannot. Again let them try to prove it by Scripture plainly and simply. They can't do it.
It's time for all good true Baptists to leave this Jehovah's Witnesses eschatology and theology behind and to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints. I never read of one instance where Christ, an apostle nor any New Testament writer even mentioned something so important as a 7 year Tribulation, premillenial rapture of the saints etc. etc, etc. And you know what..NEITHER HAS ANYONE ELSE!!
Till next time
Your brother
John
(Again good post)

 

I don't think that non-pretrib premills are saying that Christ isn't coming again. Where do you get that idea from?

I didn't know he wasn't a Baptist. What is he?

I would rather stand with Scriptural truth than any majority on any subject.

As someone with an interest in history, is that available on the Internet somewhere?

Thanks.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken</font>[/QUOTE]Bro. Ken:
These references to Athanasius and the Council of Nicea are all Roman Catholic heresy. Whoever trusts them, must be influenced by Catholicism. However, you can find some of them at any Roman Catholic web-site with a doctrinal/dogma/beliefs search engine. Happy hunting, you'll need it trying to flush out this fox.
Your brother
John
(I think that you are absolutely right!)

 

Hallelujah!! Amen brother

Your brother
John

 

The early Church Fathers were Historic Premill but not Dispensational Premill. As far as Athanasius goes, I believe he was Amill as almost all the later Fathers were. I would like some Pretrib quotes by the Fathers.

Most Baptists in the 1600-1800's were either Amill or Postmill. C.H. Spurgeon and John Gill were a few of the rare Historic Premill in that time but they were also posttrib.

 

Athanasius and Polycarp were nearly 2 centuries apart. (Polycarp's disciple was named Polycrates. Believe it or not, Athanasius was heavily influenced by Origen, if not a student of his)

 

What is this, an Amillenial support group or an AA meeting (Amillenials Anonomous)? Hi my name is John Willis and I have been an amill for as long as I can remember...

Really guys, to dismiss pretrib because you don't see it or understand it or any of the above reasons is pitiful. I have never seen a valid argument against pretrib - premill. Perhaps in your infinite wisdom you could offer one? Huh, anyone...?

I couldn't help but notice the lack of Scripture to prove either amill or postmill or attack the premill position. Perhaps we will see some of that???

Bro. Willis, there are no "problem passages" for the premiller. The only problems are in the mind of those who disagree and want it to be a problem for us. Why not bring to light a "problem passage".

Also, you dismissed premill off as a Jehovah's Witness eschatology???? How bizarre is that? So much for integrity, scholarship, and credibility. JW were formed about a century ago. Premill has been around as far as we can go historically. As I said, even Berkhof admitted to that fact.

 

You've got it a little backwards

There is not a single - not one - Scripture verse which teaches a pretrib rapture. Nada. Zilch. As one who believes an inferential doctrine as opposed to the one-time Second Coming of Christ on the last day (Matt 10:15; John 6:40, 44, 54; 11:24) it is your position which must prove its case.

As for premill, the entire doctrine is based upon Rev 20, and a millennium is mentioned nowhere else - no where - in Scripture.

Instead Scripture teaches that Christ returns, and the end then comes.

BTW, I too an an Amillennilist

 

(sigh) Again, I post:

Here is the one section of the Larkin chart if you care to look:

http://members.citynet.net/morton/images/lcoming.gif

The tribulation could start at any moment, at the very second the elect are snatched away. Perhaps at the moment the first nuke is launched (certainly the description of nuclear destruction is described in Rev).

But the Bride will be spared the Wrath of God to come during the Woe of Woes. That is not to say there won't be suffering and martyrdom leading up to the Great Tribulation as it going on now, before it is fully here! There may be a time of suffering leading up to it even for us in America.

But it is not Judgment for the Bride. By His stripes we are healed. Judgment for the Bride was paid at Calvary. That is all I want to say for now as this reply is long enough.

Plenty of Scriptures on Larkin Chart above.

(I truly believe pre-trib with all my heart! I truly do! Thank You, Jesus!)

It is Blessed Hope!

 

No need to sigh. I think most of us already understand the basic layout of pretrib. I've studied Larking inside and out, and even taught a class on him. In my opinion, he reads too much into scriptures and jumps to faulty conclusions.

It is? Mine is the *fact* of the appearing of Christ, not the *timing* of the appearing of Christ. Are you saying that if pretrib is actually wrong, you have no "Blessed Hope"?

 

There are several passages that assume a pretrib rapture. In fact, without a pretrib rapture, these passages make no sense. To say that there is no single -- not one -- Scripture verse that teaches this is a great overstatement.

Additionally, our position has been shown to be exegetically sound numerous times. So both of your contentions are answered.

This too is an unfortunate overstatement. What you should say is that the time period of the millennium is taught only in Rev 20. The fact of an earthly reign of the Messiah King over his people is testified to more times than can be listed in this forum. We are premillennialists, not becasue of Rev 20, but because of the promises of God who cannot lie. We are premillennialists because we value the OT as inspired prophecy.

But as before, you and I will agree to disagree. I just wanted to voice an opinion on your comments so people would know that there is a side you are not showing.

 

hrhema said:

Even Athanasius believed in the pre-trib rapture in 300 A.D.

Like others in this thread, I would like to see this assertion documented: enough quoted text to prove the point and establish context, and a detailed enough reference that I can find it myself, please.

 

Can you list a few? I don't believe in pretrib, and I don't know of any passages that don't make sense to me.

This too is an unfortunate overstatement. What you should say is that the time period of the millennium is taught only in Rev 20. The fact of an earthly reign of the Messiah King over his people is testified to more times than can be listed in this forum.

</font>[/QUOTE]No, Chris is entirely right. No other place in scripture mentions a thousand-year period. "Earthly reign" of Christ does not equal premill. It is not uncommon to be amill or postmill, and still believe in an earthly reign of Christ after he returns. It is simply the "everlasting kingdom", not the "millennial kingdom".

For others: still waiting for those quotes....

 

It was earlier in this thread stated thus: The fact is there is no scripture that teaches of... A Rebuilt Jerusalem Temple.

Well, according to the Jews, they believe there IS to be a rebuilt temple according to Scripture! (Of course, they base their beliefs on the OT prophecies.)

From the web site of Temple Institute:

The link:

http://www.templeinstitute.org/faqs/index.html

From their Mission Statement (they are in Jerusalem and have an interesting web site):

"...in our time." Gee, not only does Scripture support pre-trib doctrine, but the Jews are fulfilling end-time prophecy before our eyes! Maybe there's something to this! (ya know, like this generation shall not pass away until these thing are fulfilled, etc.)

BTW: In response to caustic comment above: The blessed Hope is His appearing whenever it is, has nothing to do with timing, even tho I know with all my heart, He's coming Soon! (And if He calls me home before then, that's okay too.) I'm ready either way!

 

Eagle 911 stated,

Well, Bro I usually agree with your political views but on this I have to part company. There is no mention of a rebuilt Tribulation Temple in scripture. Modern day Jews rely more on the Talmud, Mishnash... rather than Moses and the Prophets.

Rebuilding a Temple in the Tribulation would be one of the most blasphemous acts any could do since it would be a mockery of the cross and would not require the Anti Christ to go into it and proclaim himself god for it to be an abomination (as Pretribbers often assert will happen). Just the building of it would be an Abomination to Christ.