Eschatology

And this should not be a topic that is cause for separation as some would have it.

For a better understanding of the trib please obtain a copy of:

The Post-Trib/Pre-Wrath Rapture by Dr. Roland Rasmussen. Faith Baptist Church, 7644 Farralone Ave., Canoga Park, CA 91304

Dr. R. has been blasted for his stand. He is truly a brave man not bowing to what others in Fundamentalism have said about him. Many are coming around to the Post-Trib viewpoint in some part because is a loving, gracious man.

My stand on the issue has always been a loving, careful examination of scriptures together in a non-competitive environment. Meaning we have the same Spirit.

Its a shame that more believers dont follow the instruction of the great George Mueller who said that this issue should NEVER be a test of fellowship.

It is WISE to separate over issues of sin and the major doctrinal issues. This is NOT one of them.

Doctrine never divides - it unites those that are of a kindred spirit.

 

25% of Scripture is eschatalogical. Entire books in the N.T. are eschatalogical. It should separate people. We don't have to become theological agnostics.

I guess r & p doesn't consider a large portion of the N.T. to be that important.

Doctrine always divides. It keeps those who value the truth.

 

So those who differ with you in your congregation would be asked to leave?

 

No. They would be instructed in the way of truth. If they persist in believing a lie or persist in eschatalogical agnosticism, then they are at a loss and are in rebellion.

I am always amazed at how little people value eschatology. Just so you know, preterists will welcome to come and learn, but not to spread their cancer.

 

I'm the only Historical PreMillist so far?
Thats what I get for reading Ladd

Bryan
SDG

 

So as long as we stay in line and keep our mouths shut we are welcome. Nice. You would be a good fit in the IFB/KJVO crowd.

 

When I say that Doctrine unites, just like I said before, it unites those that are of a similar mind.

The Word does divide light from darkness. I have no doubt on that. Doctrine has a uniting action. It is found by those that read the Word of God. Its a common ground for them to worship under and serve together under.

And yes, eschatology is important but if your view (Daniel) is true then Paul never asked for the believers in I Thes 4 to divide from him because they believed something different concerning the resurrection of the body. Whereas today you see support being cut from missiononaries because they believe that Jesus will come before or after the Tribulation.

There is no scriptural text to support such action. The Apostles often had differences but they didnt cut off support to each other over it. For instance, Peter was rebuked by Paul for the way he separated himself with Jewish believers in the temple. However, Paul didnt separate from him over it. You might say that he would have had Peter continued in error. Yes, you are right. However, the timing of the Lord's return is not as important in our PRACTICE of faith as is the problem with what Peter was involved in. Thus some issues are more important than others and need to be dealt with properly. And every pastor will need to determine just where to draw the line of course. I tend to be gracious and loving on issues. Separation comes in the case of sin. I do not believe that it is a sin to believe in a Pre-Trib rapture just because I believe otherwise. I do believe that someone is in sin if they do not believe in the Virgin birth.

An example of an issue of separation:

1. Virgin birth. No belief in a virgin birth leaves us with an imperfect baby Jesus. Man gives the seed of sin. Jesus was not born of a man. He was born of the Spirt through Mary.

2. Bodily ressurection. I John admits that he that doesnt believe that Jesus is come in the flesh is not of God. The spirit of anti-christ preached that message. Gnostics believe this.

These and others are all good reasons why we should not worship with those that believe contrary to the main tenets of the faith.

You will never find in the Bible that any person ever seperated from another over eschatology. Nor were we commanded to do likewise.

We all know that he is coming again someday. He has NOT come already as some believe. The timing is found in scripture and was the main reason why I changed from believing in a Pre-trib Rapture to Post-trib/Pre-wrath rapture.

The bottom line is that Jesus is returning to receive his saints, judge the world in righteousness and set down his throne for 1000 years. After a SHORT final revolt he will perform final judgement on all that are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life. And then a New Jerusalem.

And I'd like to note that we have folks in our church that believe in either a Pre and Post Trib Rapture and it hasnt presented a problem at all. Our Pastor is Post-Trib and thus the church is instructed that way. He presents both positions to us so we understand both of them. He doesnt mandate that we believe one over the other for purposes of membership. He can and does mandate that one does get taught in other classes though. That after all is his right as a pastor and I respect him for it.

 

Hey Daniel David!

When's your birthday? I'm going to buy you a clue!

Just kidding.

You need to show a little more Christian temperance!!

 

Yes, the timing statements are what led me completely out of the futurist view. James 5:8 among several dozen others.

 

The time references in the New Testament will always be a thorn in the flesh for all Futurist systems.

 

Chuckles, I have much tolerance. I just don't want others to be wrong. You must understand.

Grasshopper, I repudiate KJVO and the evil of it. The difference is that my position is in line with the N.T. and the teachings of the fathers prior to augustine. Sorry about that. Like I said, all are welcome, but that doesn't mean all theology is.

PB, the time references are some of the major contributing factors as to why I am a futurist. Every time I ask for one that supposedly ruins my system, I can't get an answer.

 

Matthew 10:23 is a major contributing factor to you taking a Futurist position on eschatology? How?

 

You obviously haven't studied the issues enough or you wouldn't even ask.

 

I don't understand what you're trying to imply.

 

Just answer the question.

 

You have convinced yourself of one possible view of the time references to the absolute destruction of specific future events by making them mean some mystical message.