Featured Pre-, mid- & post-trib?

Let us not forget that Pre-Mil (post Rapture) was the historical position of the early church for nearly 400+ years.. for nearly 300 years it was an uncontested view. If you actually did some study on this you will find THEY held to 'the man of sin' being real. Unfortunately we begin to see the seedling RCC view took hold and distort truth. Sad but true.

 

Amen:thumbs::thumbs:

 

Premill maybe... but rapture was invented much MUCH later.

 

There is no "maybe"! The records are as clear as crystal of that fact. In addition your denial about the "rapture" is interpretative rather than fact.

 

Since around the 350's the RCC has a history of always setting itself against the Jews. They hunted them down and persecuted them throughout the centuries and even to this day. It is no wonder that they have the label as the true antichrist.

The RCC has for centuries taught that the covenant was broken away from physical Israel and given to the Church. They refuse to acknowledge scriptures that show "all Israel will be saved" to mean the physical Israel, but assign such Scriptures to the redeemed. To support the claim, they state the "church is the Israel" and that God "doesn't have two brides" or some such nonsense.

OF COURSE there are not two. Israel shall be redeemed JUST AS the Gentiles - when GOD decrees it to happen. That is the correct reading of Romans. No other reading is valid and consistent with both the OT and NT prophecy.

The RCC thinking is done because it fits the scheme of eliminating the Jewish people and has been used for centuries to control nations and lay blame for all manor of evil upon the Jews - thus allowing horrible persecution. (spanish inquisition, first crusade, in the 20th century antisemitism of the RCC is directly linked to the holocaust)

Unfortunately, the same thinking is/was held by the vast number of scholars (Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Erasmus, Aquinas ... ), it effected musicians and composers of music (Bach - the whole family, Handel, Stravinsky, Chopin...), and writers (Shaw, Elliot, Hemingway...). The Jewish people have never been held above suspicion, and most ungodly groups still harbor ill will toward them.

The typical covenant holder's view excludes all promises to the nation of Israel as no longer in effect, and reassigns them to the church. That is not only faulty, but disregards clear Scriptures that teach differently in both the OT and NT.

What bothers me the most, is that it is not atypical for a covenant person to proclaim all others are heretical and of satanic influence. They scorn and ridicule any other view. They heap great condemnation and belittlement in mocking those who do not agree - as if only they hold the real truth.

That alone is so unChristlike that it should not be tolerated.

It is one thing to use Scriptures to argue a view, but it is a whole other matter to condemn a person as a heretic who disagrees that the Scriptures support that view and not another.

Is that not EXACTLY what the RCC did?

Is that not what the typical covenant person did/does historically and even to this day?

Did we not witness such thinking just this morning on the BB?

I realize that I am painting with a very wide brush.

There are good folks who can proclaim a view without condemning others.

There are good folks who can acknowledge that perhaps their view has some imperfections and that the view is open for modification as Scriptures oblige.

John clearly states the point in which a person crosses the line into heresy.

I suggest that the BB folks use that as a standard of judgment and not their own puffed up view.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

​

As applicable to the return of Christ?

Anyone teaching that Christ will not return IN THE FLESH as the two in white clothing told the apostles He would, has the "spirit of antichrist."

9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11 They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”
​

It matters very little concerning the view; what does matter is that Christ will come - in the flesh.

 

Certainly, the last on a long list of things NOT to think about when being martyred is what view is correct as concerning your topic.

I doubt that anyone in that position is going to wonder if they have all the facts concerning the covenant and what might be true or not.

That you align someone who holds a different view as preaching and teaching "doctrines of devils" is wrong.

There is NO "doctrine of devils" if one holds a view of the nation of Israel that is variant of yours.

Christ was not concerned about this matter when addressing the churches in Rev. He didn't state the covenant view is the one and only, and all others were "doctrines of the devils."

What He was concerned with was the modern church that exists in THIS day. A church that considers health and wealth as hallmarks that they are in fellowship with Christ, yet they do not even know that He stands outside, knocking at the door, desiring entrance. The "name it, claim it" mentality that has led many astray into false teaching of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit.

THAT is what you should be concerned.

Does the assembly KNOW the Scriptures, rely upon the Scriptures and look to the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth.

Or, are they puffed up by the multimedia, sensuous, feel good modernist replacement for truth and true worship to the point that they accept any statement as from God's mouth, when it possibly could be from the devil.

 

Yep, Mary Magdalene --> Darby --> Scofield --> "Rightly dividing" --> Any Moment Fly Away Escapist Doctrine - aka - "The Rapture".

It took a dreamer and then her friends to properly interpret it and form a system out of it...never heard huh?

:laugh:



:smilewinkgrin: Relax guys, I couldn't resist...:tonofbricks:

 

There is a maybe... in what the fathers understood about the kingdom reign (i.e. the church) and even the thousand year notion (figurative for a long time). But I don't mind granting that the early church documents that have survived seem to be mostly premill in some form.

However, as Dr. Bob acknowledged, the rapture theory was not an early church doctrine. I would argue that it is a post-reformation invention. So to put them together is anachronistic as early church dogma.

 

Incorrect.. Historic Premil holds to a post Trib rapture.. always has.

 

never mind

 

Maybe when the doctrine called "historic premill" was developed into a system post-reformation, then yes. But the very concept of "rapture" is a very late development. There are early church fathers who give statements that accords well w/ premillennialism. I don't deny that. But there is virtual silence on the concept of rapture amongst the fathers.

 

'Historic Premil' simply is the identifier for 'historic' view that Premil of the early church held to.

For example:

You can see here the 7 year tribulation, the catching away or rapture.. the man of sin - Antichrist, and the coming physical return of Christ to set up His Mil-reign. Justin Martyr is another and others as well

 

Should be an obvious difference noted between Darby’s New Dispensationalism with “The Rapture” and that of Ancient Dispensationalism and the “general resurrection”.

Not buying this ancient time "support system" as it relates to these new "rapture doctrines". It just isn't there.

Just sayin…

 

This was foretold. This is nothing less than prophecy fulfilled. The Holy Roman Empire made war with the Lamb (the Church) and hated the Harlot (apostate Judaism under the judgment/curses/plagues of Lev 26/Dt 28), and ate her flesh, and burnt her with fire.

12 And the ten horns that thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet; but they receive authority as kings, with the beast, for one hour.
13 These have one mind, and they give their power and authority unto the beast.
14 These shall war against the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings; and they also shall overcome that are with him, called and chosen and faithful.
15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest, and the beast, these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her utterly with fire. Rev 17

From Dr Overby's 'A Brief Commentary on Daniel':

"Rome is first ruled by the Caesars and then the Germanic tribes.........The ten horns represent kings and their kingdoms which will take over the kingdom of Rome. Ten Germanic tribes did this. They were the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Franks, Burgundians, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Alamanni, and the Lombards.”

 

So are Arminians the ones "left behind?"

 

Anybody with common sense knows that Revelation 17 is about ROME exclusively from start to finish. But lets deal with your buffoonery about Revelation 17. I don't know what Bible you are reading but Jesus is NOT the church. 2 Thess 2 clearly shows that the man of sin is consumed by the word of Christ's mouth, and that it is CHRIST HIMSELF that defeats Satan.

*The 10 "nations" you listed although Gentile were not exclusively Germanic. They were racially LATIN. Some of the nations that Satan makes a league with (Daniel 11, Rev 9) are from the EAST and are not caucasion at all. This is also key to understanding Matthew 24 because Jesus said that ARMIES (plural) would attack Israel (Zech 14:1-3), not ONE ARMY (Rome) in AD 70, and since these armies included armies from the east, and Rome is WEST of Jerusalem, none of the prophecies of Revelation or Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13 were fulfilled in AD 70 except the ONLY MENTION of the destrucgtion of Jerusalem mentioned in the very beginning of Matthew 24. The kingdoms of Revelation 17 is about NATIONS NOT RACES OR TRIBES. You left out about 50 more than the 10 you listed not to mention ignoring one of the biggest ones of all -The Hapsburgs.

*In Revelation 17, these nations are DESTROYED BY CHRIST HIMSELF, and they fight against THE LAMB not THE CHURCH. "These shall make war AGAINST THE LAMB" which as anyone can read, began by them being gathered together in Revelation 16:16.

*In Revelation 12 a remnant of Israel is miraculously protected by God from Satan (v 6, 14) After Satan's unsuccessful attack he turns to hunt down the rest of her SEED. (Rev 12:15-17).

*The harlot is MYSTERY BABYLON. The origins of this begin with Nimrod in Genesis 11 and has never referred to Israel. The abominations of the earth with organized paganism begin in EGYPT, not Israel. Therefore the harlot of ROME is not Israel or any "Jews". The statue of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2 shows the line of mystery Babylon from Assyria to Rome, NEVER Israel.

*Revelation says of the harlot that she commits FORNICATION (Rev 18:1-4) with all the kings of the earth. If the harlot were Israel, the term would have been ADULTERY. Fornication is the sin of binding with someone BEFORE MARRIAGE, thus the harlot WAS NEVER MARRIED TO GOD which can not be said of Israel. Israel by law can not cast off her husband UNLESS HE'S DEAD. Romans 7:1-4. So unless you are a Nietzsche follower ("God is dead") Israel is not the harlot of Revelation 17-18.

*Revelation 18:12-14 gives further details about products produced by this harlot that were EXCLUSIVE to Rome (Purple, silk, scarlet and particularly thyine wood-Rev 18:12). Israel has not been a major center of commerce or even a major contender for almost 2000 years.

*Israel has not been guilty of killing millions throughout the earth. They have hardly been in such a position to do so. Besides, all of your conspiracy theories about Israel's atrocities occurred within the last 100 years, that hardly fits with your assertion that Revelation 17-18 was fulfilled in the early centuries of the church when Israel was SCATTERED.

"And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth" Rev 18:24

Rome murdered over 50 million Christians from it's AD 40-the 1500s of ALL THAT DWELL ON EARTH. That can hardly be said of Israel.

*Revelation 18:20 states "Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her."

The harlot is someone that was directly responsible for killing the prophets AND THE APOSTLES. Israel killed prophets BUT NOT BOTH. ROME KILLED THE APOSTLES AND THE PROPHETS because ROME is the beast that includes Babylon, Medo Persia, and Greece (Rev 13:2).

The beast and harlot are from ROME, and Revelation 17-18 have absolutely NOTHING to do with any Jews/Israel.

 

Thanks for the lesson, but I've already acknowledged that.

First of all, Irenaeus alludes to 1 Thess. 4. He doesn't say anything about a rapture along the lines rapture theologians do. He leaves it very general. Likely, he use the word "catching away" as the royal meeting outside the city only to return w/ the king as Paul used it there. I'd have to see the text though and I don't have the time or desire to dig it up right now.

Second of all, I don't see 7 years. I see 3 1/2 as alluding to Daniel and Rev. Common interpretation foisted on the text when it is never there.

Lastly, it is arguable that the millennial reign here is what you want it to be. It could very well be eternity in that it is the 7th day of rest bringing to fruiting salvation history begun in Abraham. It matches well Rev. 21-22 referring to the gathering of the nations.

So I wouldn't press this too much.