Featured The strong case against a pre-tribulation rapture

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

We were talking about the 144k in Rev. and nowhere does it say they do any evangelizing.

 

Perhaps. Most would agree, however, that EGW is a false prophetess, and that her teachings should not be followed but avoided at all costs.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
[FONT=&quot]

Except for the few amillennialists that might be around, most of us believe in the millennial kingdom. There is nothing unusual in that. That is the Chiliasm of the first century. The question is when that thousand years will be. Most here believe it will take place after the Second Coming of Christ, after the Tribulation, which time we do not know. Christ himself warned:

Matthew 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.


Matthew 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.


Matthew 25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

There is no 1260 years. There is no period of time. There is no way to figure out the timing of the coming of Christ, the Tribulation, or the rapture. The timing of all these things are all relative to the timing of the Coming of Christ. Those that make such predictions are fools, for Christ himself said that no man knows or can know.
In Acts chapter one, he said "It is not for you to know."
[FONT=&quot]

This is not always true. It cannot be applied uniformly.
[FONT=&quot]

This has nothing to do with prophecy; it is a judgment and nothing more.
[FONT=&quot]

Again, following the instructions of the Lord for that time and period. It is not to be applied uniformly throughout.
[FONT=&quot]

Your theory falls apart here. 70 weeks is 490 years. But that is only because a week is literally is literally a week--a group of seven. It could be seven days, seven months, seven weeks, seven years, etc. It simply means "seven groups of seven." The context dictates what it actually means.
[FONT=&quot]

Not your view; and not your interpretation.

Not the way that you half-haphazardly apply this rule--only as it fits your convenience.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

They do not agree with you. They may be "millennialists. But they do not agree with you. This is where you become deceitful in putting their names in the same category as yours. In no way is their doctrine similar to yours, not even in the area of eschatology.
To prove that we can demonstrate that through the writings of Spurgeon alone.

 

[FONT=&quot]Post millennialism vs premill


From; http://www.spurgeon.org/eschat.htm#3b [/FONT]
Postmillennialism was the "dominant evangelical position"100 of the 19th century in both America and England. It was born out of an optimistic view of Christianity's growing impact on society and the legacy of Puritan theology.101 In detailing the aspects of postmillennialism, perhaps the most complete presentation was produced by the great Princeton Theologian, Charles Hodge. Hodge, whose Systematic Theology remains a standard work in America, was also highly respected in England and particularly by Spurgeon.102 Spurgeon was a great admirer of the Princeton Theologians and corresponded with both Charles and A. A. Hodge on several occasions. In reviewing A. A. Hodge's Outlines in Theology (1878) Spurgeon stated:
We commend the Outlines of Theology to all who would be well instructed in the faith. It is the standard text-book of our college. We differ from its teachings upon baptism, but in almost everything else we endorse Hodge to the letter.103 [emphasis ours]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT] And of course who can forget

Quote:
[FONT=&quot]Walter Martin. Kingdom of the Cults – Appendix B.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“[/FONT][FONT=&quot]From the beginning, the Adventists were regarded with grave suspicion by the great majority of evangelical Christians, principally because the Seventh-day Adventists were pre-millennial in their theology.That is, they believed that Christ would come before the millennium and saw themselves squarely in opposition to the predominant post-millennial and a-millennial schools of thought of that era. [/FONT]

==============================================

1260 years and "day for a year" principle in apocalyptic timelines.



[FONT=&quot]From [/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premillennialism#17th_and_18th_centuries[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“ Edwards taught that a type of Millennium would occur “1260 years after A.D. 606 when Rome was recognized as having universal authority.”[52] “[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]American Jonathan Edwards (1703–58) “fueled millennial ideas with new influence in the nineteenth century.”[51] It was authors such as these who concluded that the decline of the Roman Catholic Church would make way for the conversion and restoration of the nation of Israel. Edwards taught that a type of Millennium would occur “1260 years after A.D. 606 when Rome was recognized as having universal authority.”[52] His Puritan contemporaries, Increase Mather and Cotton Mather, openly proclaimed a belief in a literal millennium. Increase Mather wrote “That which presseth me so, as that I cannot gainsay the Chiliastical opinion, is that I take these things for Principles, and no way doubt but that they are demonstrable. 1. That the thousand apocalyptical years are not passed but future. 2. That the coming of Christ to raise the dead and to judge the earth will be within much less than this thousand years. 3. That the conversion of the Jews will not be till this present state of the world is near unto its end. 4. That, after the Jews’ conversion there will be a glorious day for the elect upon earth, and that this day shall be a very long continuance.”[53][/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]DAY for YEAR – [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Day for a Year – rule in Scripture as we see it in Dan 9’s 70 weeks prophecy (490 solar years correspond to 490 prophetic days in Dan 9)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Numbers 14:34[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]34[/FONT][FONT=&quot]'According to the number of days which you spied out the land, forty days, for every day you shall bear your guilt a year, even forty years, and you will know My opposition.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ezekiel 4:6[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
"When you have completed these, you shall lie down a second time, but on your right side and bear the iniquity of the house of Judah; I have assigned it to you for forty days, a day for each year.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Dan 9:24-27 – 70 weeks – 490 days [/FONT]à[FONT=&quot] 490 years. Almost all Christian denominations will admit to this apocalyptic principle in Daniel 9 as it predicts the first coming of Christ.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]============================================================================[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]This view was recognized by the Jews[5] as seen in Daniel 9:24-27, and as seen in Jesus' use of the day-year principle in Luke 13 verses 31-33, and in the early church.[6]

Protestant Reformers were well established on the day/year principle and it was also accepted by many Christian groups, ministers, and theologians.[11][12][13]


[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]"Others who expounded the Historicist interpretation are John Wycliffe, John Knox, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Phillip Melanchthon, Sir Isaac Newton, Jan Huss, John Foxe, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards,[14] George Whitefield, Charles Finney, C. H. Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, E. B. Elliot, H. Grattan Guinness, and Bishop Thomas Newton as exponents of this school.[15]"[/FONT]
=============================================

in Christ,

Bob

 

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]This is not the argument.
There are plenty of post-mills on this board, and no doubt there are much more pre-mills. There may be a few amills, but I doubt it. They generally hold to a very liberal view of the Bible.
That Spurgeon was post-mil would not be anything astoundingly new. Most of his era were. But he did not interpret the Scripture the way you did. You just proved that yourself by stating he was post-mil and not pre-mil. He disagrees. Thus your hypocrisy in posting him as one who agrees with you. When will you stop doing this. None of them agree with you. Not even Edwards.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Walter Martin. Kingdom of the Cults –

In the older editions of Walter Martin's "Kingdom of the Cults" he included the SDA' along with the J.W.'s as cults. He also included the RCC in those same editions.

Because they have some things right, doesn't make them right in all things.
[FONT=&quot]

--This is utter nonsense. Just because it is true in one passage does not make it true in all passages.
Apply this to Rev.20:1-5. "Day for year." How long does that make "thousand years"? Does a thousand then mean 365,000? Do all numbers just become symbolic to you? Your method of interpretation is wrong.

 

THE THIEF IN THE NIGHT.

One of the pillars in sand, that the cRapture is built on, is the insistence that the Lord's Return will surprise everyone.
That He returns, as a thief in the night, sneaking in, and back out, wthout being seen, or heard, and completely taking the good Man of the house by surprise.

Lets look at this.

1Th 5:1-5
Chapter 5
1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day:we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

I'm amazed at how often the the previous 7 verses are quotes, from IThes 4, without completing the context as it carries over into ch.5

look at 5:4. This one verse destroys this pillar places in sand.

Why would God command us to "WATCH", if we wouldnt see it coming? He wanted to make a fool of us? Jesus didnt actually want Peter, James, and John to watch with Him in the garden?

We are not in darkness, we have the light of God's Word.

And besides, when The Sun goes missing, you know something is up, even if you're a moron.

 

[FONT=&quot]

The point of the following post was not to claim that post-mills do not exist. Just that the premill position at the start of the 19th century was not well accepted among Christians in Europe and America. And also that the "day for a year" principle was well accepted among various groups such that simplistic "name calling" would not make it go away.

Obviously.

 

No modern evangelical conservative would agree with you.
You are quoting from people who lived long ago.
In the course of history there have been many times when people, because of the events surrounding have thought that either the Tribulation or the Coming of Christ, or the Anti-Christ, or anyone of these events have been just around the corner. For the same reasons people do today.

For example, people who lived at the time of WWII were convinced that Hitler was the Anti-Christ, and who wouldn't have been. Many were convinced that the War itself was the Tribulation, and why not? Often circumstances dictate our theology, unfortunately.

Even during the Gulf War of the early 90's there were predictions that Christ was going to come at that time. Had Israel entered into the war, as she was threatening to do, surely Christ would have come to destroy her enemies, or so people were saying at that time.

Now, with the many calamities happening all over the world, and with increasing frequency, the wars and rumors of wars, nation rising up against nation, people again talk of the Coming of Christ being very imminent. Circumstances tell us that His come is soon. They always have. Christ told us to watch and wait, for we know not when his coming would be.

He warned us not calculate it all out. That is foolishness. He told us we would not know. There is no conservative evangelical scholar that would agree with you.

 

Catholics get to accuse me of that - last accusation each time I quote the Bible.

It does not bother me as much as you may have at first supposed.

The discussion at this point is not "when do you think Jesus is coming" the discussion is on pre-trib vs post-trib and to some extent as a side topic whether the day for year model as used in Dan 9 and Daniel 7 (and Daniel 8) is legit.

I point to a number of scholars that firmly accept the day for year model of interpreting apocalyptic prophetic timelines just to eliminate the hollow distraction that is of the form "only evil BobRyan accepts the day for year model for apocalyptic timelines".

I am just trying to keep the discussion on track.

As for the Papacy being identified with the "man of sin" and "son of perdition" in 2Thess 2- there is no doubt that Protestant commentaries and scholars have accepted this point all along.

What someone asked about on this thread is the 1260 days (also listed as "times times and half a time", and also "42 months" which is all the same time period) -- so I just pointed out that in both Rev 12 an Daniel 7 that 1260 years of dark ages follows not only the first coming of Christ but also follows the fall of the pagan Roman Empire according to Dan 7.

in Christ,

Bob

 

As I said before

======================


In Matt 24 we have
29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."


So then for those who prefer an even more pointed reading ---


Matt 24
29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days ... He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."


The man-made tradition of the Pre-trib rapture does not survive Matt 24.

 

This is referencing to our atittude of always looking for his coming while we serve him, It mean we are to be alert and serving him with an attitude of his imminent return.

"Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh" (Matthew 24:44).

 

In Matt 24 Christ said that the flood took them all by surprise just as does the 2nd coming.

But the flood had a boat building project that "all could see".

And when it was done - then came the flood.

The Flood also had animals miraculously gathering and entering the ark for about a week before the door closed. And "all could see' that sign as well.

Still no one entered because with each new sign completed came more arguments and confusing lies to blind the people against it.

Like the frog in the pot of water as it slowly heats up - in the end they were all surprised.

"And did not know until the water came and took them all away".

In 2Thess 2 they are turned over to 'strong delusions' at the end of time "so as to believe a lie".

Thus the 2nd coming is a big surprise to those living at the end.

And John is right in John 5 - there are only two resurrections. One for the righteous and one for the wicked.

And John is right again in Rev 20:4-5 that the resurrection of the Righteous is called the "FIRST resurrection" and is separated from the resurrection of the wicked - by 1000 years. And it happens at the Rev 19-20 second coming event.

The saints are taken to heaven - as promised in John 14:1-4 at the 2nd coming.

in Christ,

Bob

 

You mean this chapter?:
Mat 24:3-4
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

Private meeting between Jesus, and the apostles to His Church.

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.

Who's sake?

Mat 24:29-31
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.

What was the sign? Oh, I see, sun, moon, stars, sky, trumpets,...yeah, no one will notice any of this! They'll all be like:"Whaa happened to all those people that disappeared, cuz I didnt notice anything wierd?".

Try sticking to the Scriptures, my friend.

Your buddies Darby and Scholfield didnt believe your KJV, and they gave you, or your teachers, the pre-trib dispy heresy that you espouse.

 

When both the RCC and the evangelicals agree that you are wrong, you should sit up and take note.

Pre-trib and Post-trib. :laugh:
Is Jesus coming before the Tribulation or is Jesus coming after the Tribulation. Indeed the coming of Christ has everything to do with these two positions. That is what the meaning of the words mean--when is the coming of Christ? After the Tribulation (post), or before the Tribulation (pre)?

They accept that theory only in Daniel 9; nowhere else.
1260 days = 42 month = 3 1/2 years = times, time, and half a time: all of which are used interchangeably and literally in the Book of Revelation. Your theory miserably fails throughout this book, and simply leads to nonsense. Two prophets prophecy during a seven period Tribulation for 42 months or 3 1/2 years--exactly half of that time. But how long would you have them living?

Many believe that. It is not a sure thing. It is still speculation. One cannot be dogmatic about such things.

But that is not true. History is not confined to the Dark Ages or the fall of the Roman Empire. Much has taken place since that time. These are older commentaries that speculated on that. No modern evangelical commentary would hold that out-dated view. Much has passed under the bridge since that time. How much time has passed since the fall of the Roman Empire? since the Dark Ages? All of history cannot be confined to that period of time in history.

 

Well then - Matt 24 has the answer as noted above. It is "after the tribulation of those days" according to the text.


As for the Day for a year model used in apocalyptic writing -- and proven to be accurate in places like Daniel 9 where the prophecy is already fulfilled and can be seen to work in true day-for-year fashion - just all apocalpytic timelines work in both Daniel and Revelation we have...

Never literally because it is an apocalyptic timeline.

As for understanding the 1260 days as 1260 years...

Even Matthew Henry admits that the little horn - 11th horn of Daniel 7 is the Papacy and that this cannot be refuted.

Other sources also agree with the 1260 year application for Daniel 7

Martin Luther – 1260 years starting from Emperor Phocase (602-610)

John Cotton - (1639) 395 - 1655 as the 1260
Increase Mather (1708) 456 AD to 1716 as the 1260
Jonathan Edwards (1739) – 606-1866 as the 1260
George Bell
Edward King,
William Cunninghame,
Charles Maitland,
Alexandar Keith,
Edward Bickersteth
Edward Irving,
George Croly
Matthew Habeshon
Joseph Wolf
Johann Petri (1769)
Hans Wood of Ireland (1787)
Isaac Newton

 

Cotton and Mather were contemporaries, whose children married. And the result was their Satanic Monster grandson, Cotton Mather.

 

For accuracy, Cotton Mather was John Cotton's grandson and Increase Mather's son.

 

Ah, yes, thank you. I read Cotton Mather's autobiography of sorts, 10 years ago. I had forgotten that Increase's father married John Cotton's widow, and he married John Cotton's daughter, who was his step-sister, and not actually related to him.
Richard Mather was the grandfather, Increase was the father.

Funny thing, about John Cotton, he was expelled from teaching at Harvard, for "Baptist heresies", wasn't he?

Either way, The Mathers were Calvinistic Puritans, who distinctly added works to grace. Not Bob Ryan's crowd.

 

No,you are confusing him with Henry Dunster who was President of Harvard. After witnessing the public flogging of Obadiah Holmes Dunster became a Baptist in short order. He willingly quit Harvard.

By the way,did you know that Cotton Mather apologized for the persecution of Baptists in 1717? He preached an ordination sermon for a new Baptist preacher. The sermon was called "Good Men United."

Another tidbit that will bring some derisive snickers: John Cotton loved "to sweeten his mouth with a piece of Calvin" before sleeping.

 

Yes he is coming after the Tribulation. It is called the Second Coming or the Second Advent. The position often debated here is the rapture, described in IThes.4:15-17. Here he comes for the believers. It is the first resurrection. It takes place before The Tribulation. This is the pre-trib position. Then the Tribulation. Then the Second Coming when Christ comes to put down all enemies of Israel. He will also come with the saints (who were previously raptured) as described in Revelation 19.
One has to distinguish between these two aspects of his coming.

Paul fully expected Christ to come in his day. To say that it is already fulfilled in your time period would be similar to calling Paul naive if not stupid in all of his eschatological writings. You would be doing the same with the Apostle John. They didn't know what they were talking about. But you know better than they do. How ridiculous.
John prayed: "Even so come Lord Jesus." He fully expected the coming of Christ in his lifetime.
So did Paul, and warned about it often.
So did Peter, who also admonished his readers that Christ could come at any time. His coming was imminent.
In fact Christ Himself told his disciples that in their lifetimes He could come back. Thus the question in Acts 1: "Will you now set up your kingdom"?

Your theory, (day to a year), makes dunces out of the authors of the NT.

 

That quote was in Cotton Mather's bio.