Featured Questioning My belief in pre trib rapture

1 Corinthians 15:20-21
20. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
24. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

The above Scripture shows that Jesus Christ is the First Resurrection and there are no more resurrections until He returns. He has not yet returned so there have been no resurrections but His! For your information Jesus Christ was resurrected with a glorified body. That is what is necessary for a Biblical resurrection.

My position has always been that Jesus Christ is the FIRST RESURRECTION and that will be followed by the resurrection of all the dead as God states clearly in John 5:28, 29. If you can prove otherwise then do so.

Those who have part in the First Resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, are all those who have been redeemed by his sacrifice.

I don't care whether you have read Darby or not. You claim to be a pre-trib-dispensationalist. I have spelled out two grievous errors of Darby the inventor of pre-trib doctrine which includes the doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church.

 

From 1 Cor. 15:23


aparch
aparchE
G536
n_ Nom Sg f
Firstfruit

 

In 1 Corinthians the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not called the "first" resurrection but rather the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the saints raised when he was raised and were seen about the city are called the "firstfruits" of the same resurrection. It is this very same resurrection, which Christ and other were the "firstfruits" that occurs at his coming, but then cometh "the end" or "when" the termination of the kingdom of God on earth "when" Christ hands it over to the Father and "when" death is cast into the lake of fire and destroyed at the same time the "second" resurrection of "the dead" occurs (Rev. 20:12-15) which occurs AFTER the first resurrection. Of this "second" resurrection none of those in the "first" resurrection (including the "firstfruits" of it) have anything to do with.

BTW for your information I am not a pre-tribber.

 

There is nothing in 1 Corinthians 15 which indicates that the saints who came out of the grave after the resurrection of Jesus Christ are included. There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that the saints who came out of the grave glorified bodies like that of Jesus Christ. There is no Scripture to indicate that these Saints were taken to heaven or returned to the grave.

 

As you can see, opinions vary with some on both sides claiming their view is truth and the other side is simply wrong.

I think too much focus on end times sequence results in taking us away from our job as ambassadors of Christ. We have the pre-tribbers firing away at the post tribbers, with the mid-tribbers and pre-wrathers ducking for cover. Will anything be resolved?

Mean-while, back at the ranch, we have those who have recently put their trust in Christ and need to taught "all" that Christ commanded. Are you prepared to do that?

 

Regardless of that, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is called the "firstfruits" of the resurrection of the saints. The firstfruits of a crop of corn or grapes was not part of another harvest but of the same harvest. Paul does not call the resurrection of Jesus Christ "the first" resurrection but the "firstfruits."

Furthermore, "then cometh the end" is explicitly defined by the series of "when....when......when......when" that follow which pin pointing its precise time at the Great White judgement scene "when" death is cast into the lake of fire thus the last enemy is destroyed. Hence, then "cometh the end" which is found in context of resurrections is the "second" resurrection recorded in Revelation 20.

 

http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/when_was_the_pre_tribulation_rapture_taught.html

No it is not a fact of history, I just showed you the facts from history, Thomas Ice is wrong... period the end. Go look at the two examples I gave you.

And yes the pre trib rapture is supported by scripture, but you comply ignore than because of your faulty interpretation of John 5:28-29

Stop saying that Darby invented the Pre Trib Rapture, it's not true and you are flat out speaking information I have shown you to be wrong, if you say it again I have no choice but to believe that you are lying and being purposely deceptive.

 

The issue is not when the rapture occurs. Biblicist is not a pre-tribber, as he says and I basically agree with the rest of what he says. OR has taken a completely different stance which ignores much of scripture. That is the problem.

 

Ephraem the Syrian and Morgan Edwards may have preached the pre-trib-rapture but they both preached false doctrine. The truth is that there is not a single verse of Scripture that clearly supports a pre-trib-removal of the church.

The fact that these men preached a false doctrine is irrelevant to my argument. History credits John Nelson Darby as the father of pre-trib-dispensationalism whether you like it or not!

Furthermore, my interpretation of John 5:28, 29 is correct. The only way dispensationalists can get two resurrections out of that passage is to ignore the much vaunted dispensational hermeneutic of taking Scripture at Face Value as Charles Ryrie likes to say!

I would also note that most Baptist Confessions of Faith also teach a general resurrection and general judgment!

 

You are wrong. Pre-rib-dispensationalism is false doctrine. The teaching that Jesus Christ died for a "parenthesis", an interruption in God's purpose for apostate Israel, is sacrilege if not worse in my opinion. You say you don't believe in the doctrine of a "parenthesis" church. Just what do you believe Jesus Christ died for? Scripture says He died for the Church.

Furthermore, as I noted in the previous post, most Baptist Confessions of Faith teach a general resurrection and general judgment!

 

1. You have the "I am right and everyone else is wrong syndrome.
2. You continue to make falsehoods even when you have been corrected a countless number of times.
3. "Jesus died for a "parenthesis,"...." No one said he did. This is one of you perpetuated falsehoods. I never said this. I don't think RevMitchell or Biblicist has. You simply keep parroting this lie.
4. "Jesus died for the Church." No, I don't agree with your ecclesiology. But that is another can of worms. He died for churches such as the church of Ephesus when he made that statement (Acts 20:28). But you don't care about context. He also said that he will come for his bride (all believers).
5. The Bible is my authority (sola sciptura), not other creeds and confessions. I really don't care what they say.

It is difficult to talk to a person who continues to post falsehoods and then doesn't fairly represent the other person's beliefs when he does post.

 

You would do well to remember this yourself for occasions other than this present discussion.

"False doctrine" is far too strong a statement. I don't agree with Pre-trib Dispys on eschatology, but--if we understand that when the Bible discusses "false doctrine" it is almost without exception disqualifying from the faith--it is not damning to hold to such a position.

Pre-trib Dispy eschatology may be wrong, but since eschatology is not a first or second-order issue, it really doesn't (and cannot) rise to the level of "false doctrine." Now, if the Pre-trib Dispys denied that Christ would return at all... that would be "false doctrine."

The Archangel

 

I repeat my post #24:

I believe the doctrine of pre-trib-dispensationalism that the Church for which Jesus Christ died is a "parenthesis", an interruption in God's purpose for Israel, is false doctrine.

 

That is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Then you should be able to point out a few.

From:http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=94639&highlight=parenthesis+Church

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Jesus Christ also taught a general resurrection and judgment in John 5:28, 29.

Then produce one verse of Scripture that teaches a pre-trib-removal of the church or teaches that the Church is a "parenthesis" in God's purpose for apostate Israel.

You have never fairly represented my beliefs in any discussion we have had. You take the typical dispensational approach that anyone who does not agree with you is wrong and their salvation is questionable.

 

You can see how ridiculous this post is right here.
Go back to my previous post. You keep up this false rant.
No one HERE, as in me, RevMitchell, or Biblicist, has ever conceded (to my knowledge) in the belief of what you term "the Church is a parenthesis..."
This is a lie that you keep on perpetuating. I told you that in my previous post, and yet you have done it again. Why?
Is it because you think we must conform to your authorities??
Not everyone thinks alike. Not every dispensationalist holds exactly the same views. You don't seem to understand these things.

 

The early proponents, or authorities, of Darby's pre-trib-dispensationalism including Scofield, Chafer, Ironside, Pentecost and more recently Walvoord and Ryrie taught that the Church was an interruption, a "parenthesis", an intercalation, in God's purpose for Israel, or should I say apostate Israel. The concept of the "parenthesis" church is the outcome of Darby's pre-trib-removal of the church.

Now the fact that you are ignorant of pre-trib-dispensational doctrine yet still support that doctrine does not speak well of you. This is similar to the blind adherence of millions of Roman Catholics to a doctrine of which they are basically ignorant. Very sad indeed.

Thankfully, though good ole Mitch calls it the dumbest statement ever, there is a movement, called progressive dispensationalism, away from the pre-trib-dispensational teaching of a "parenthesis" church.

And I eagerly await that single passage of Scripture that clearly teaches a pre-trib-removal of the Church, just one will do!

 

Why do you so naively assume that I MUST agree with all your supposed authorities just because I am a dispensationalist? You are wrong. I don't agree with all these men. You will have to find out what I believe and stop making false accusations.
RevMitchell has told you the same thing.
Biblicist has told you the same thing.
Yet, you continue to tell us we believe things we do not believe.
Grow up!

 

That is false. I have never tried to tell you what you believe. I have simply posted facts about the doctrine of Darby's pre-trib-dispensationalism.

Perhaps it is you who need to grow up, in the faith that is!

 

And so? I have never read Darby. Why do you assume I believe everything Darby believes? I don't. Do you believe everything Calvin believes?
I am not a "Darbyite." Don't falsely accuse me of believing things I don't believe.

 

Repeating one more time!

And you are a "pre-trib-dispensationalist" are you not?