The reign of amillenial theology

(CONTINUED)

Mar 13:24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

John 16:33 “I have spoken these things to you so that you might have peace in Me. In the world you shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer. I have overcome the world.”

Act 14:22 “…confirming the souls of the disciples, calling on them to continue in the faith and that through much tribulation we must enter into the kingdom of God.”

Rom 2:9 “[But] tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man who has worked out evil; of the Jew first, and also of the Greek.”

Rom 8:35 “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?”

Eph 3:13 “For this reason I desire that you faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.”

2Th 1:4 “… so much so that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God, for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations which you endure.[/QUOTE]Rev 2:9 “ …and tribulation and poverty (but you are rich), and I the blasphemy of those saying themselves to be Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”

Rev 2:10 “Do not at all fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the Devil will cast some of you into prison, so that you may be tried. And you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful to death, and I will give you the crown of life.”

Rev 7:9 “After these things I looked, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, out of all nations and kindreds and people and tongues, stood before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palms in their hands.”[/QUOTE]Rev 7:13 And one of the elders answered, saying to me, Who are these who are arrayed in white robes, and from where do they come?

Rev 7:14 And I said to him, Sir, you know. And he said to me, These are the ones who came out of the great tribulation and have washed their robes, and have whitened them in the blood of the Lamb]/b].

WOW! What a conclusion!

Now, I think Point #1 has been answered concerning the word “tribulation?” and “great tribulation”! Thus, there can be no doubt that the Great Tribulation is nothing more than a greater degree of intensity and that “great” also refers to the lifespan of the earth as we know it today.

For now, I don’t know about you but I’ll go through the “great tribulation” for Christ any day and with confidence that I will be entitled to wear those white robes with much thankfulness for I am confidant also that Christ will not be asking me to endure “more” than what is in the scriptures that He Himself endure. That is indisputable!

 

Trailblazer,

AMEN! I agree with you! Preach it!

Keep it up and study Bible! 2 Tim. 2:15

Bible does not promise us, that we shall escape from the coming 'great tribulation', or any kinds of tribulations, persecutions, etc.

Church history tells us, thousands or probaably ober millions of Christians were persecuted and killed because they preached the gospel for Christ's sake.

Matt. 24:21-22 does not saying that we shall escape from the coming 'great tribulation'. Obivously, Christ warns us, that we shall face great tribulation will come upon us, even in America too.

Ed, there is NO difference between 'great tribulation' & 'tribulations', both are same meaning. Why must we have tribulations? Because Jesus Christ suffered on the corss for us, so, therefore, we ough follow Christ's example - 1 Peter 2:21; & 1 Peter 4:12-16.

Trailblazer,

Keep it up!

To all premillers:

Let you know, all amillers are posttribbers, because they believe that the Church must go through much tribulations according Acts 14:22, and also, all amillers believe there is the only ONE future coming of Christ at the end of the world/age. Very simple and plain.

Not only amillers are posttribbers. Also, more than 200 years ago, all premillers were posttribbers. During 17th and 18th Century, nearly all Christians in America were postmill/amill. None of them were premill. Didn't you know that?

Till in the mid to late of 19th Century, John N. Darby visited America, and he spread his new teaching of dispensationalism & pretribulationism. Many Christians in America begun to adopt Darby's teaching. Premillennialism become popular among churches in America at the dawn of the 20th Century(turn of the 20th century-early 1900's) to today.

John N. Darby was the Father of Dispensationalism.

Many already gone to follow Darby's teaching instead follow what the Bible teaching. I rather follow what the Bible saying than what men saying according to Colossians 2:8.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

DeafPostTrib'

By jove, I think they're all hiding in the caves! Must have 'em stumped! Ya think?

:D

 

Speaking of Caves -
Revelation 6:12-17 (KJV1611):

And I beheld when he had opened the sixt seale, and loe, there was a great earthquake, and the Sunne became blacke as sackecloth of haire, and the Moone became as blood.
Rev 6:13 And the starres of heauen fell vnto the earth, euen as a figge tree casteth her vntimely figs when she is shaken of a mighty winde.
Rev 6:14 And the heauen departed as a scrowle when it is rolled together, and euery mountaine and Island were moued out of their places.
Rev 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chiefe captaines, and the mighty men, and euery bondman, and euery free man, hid themselues in the dennes, and in the rockes of the mountaines,
Rev 6:16 And said to the mountaines and rockes, Fall on vs, and hide vs from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lambe:
Rev 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come, and who shall be able to stand?

Show me in your history books where
about 70AD
every bondman and every freeman hid in caves
and knew God's wrath had come. Sources
from 2 of the following three will work
nicely:

1. Native American sources
2. Chineese or Japaneese source
3. Sub-Sarahan Africa source

 

Where's DD? I thought for sure he'd have swooped back in here to blast us!

 

And there is for sure no way i can
ever shine up to his example :D

 

Charles,

Actually, it was WATCHMAN'S post that I was responding to on those 7 points that he challenged me on so I expect will be around eventually. He didn't seem like the type that would avoid it.

 

to all premill/pretrib ,

do you have problem with rev 20:1-4 ?

deaf posttrib preach it amem you done a excellent post.

traibazler well done keep it up study hard.

 

Excellent point, excellent Scripture reference! Take each word in the passage in the most literal, every day use sense (and there is no reason not to take it literally) this is one of the great proof texts for the premil position.

 

Excellent point, excellent Scripture reference! Take each word in the passage in the most literal, every day use sense (and there is no reason not to take it literally) this is one of the great proof texts for the premil position. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother Watchman -- Preach it!

I always use Revelation 20:4 to show
the pretribulation Rapture/resurreciton
for that verse shows the TWO groups which
are raptured/resurrected in the TWO
phases of the SECOND COMING. "First" does
not mean "one and only one" -- never has,
never will. The Greek word "prōtos" does not
mean "one and only one" -- never has, never
will.

 

Thank you brother trailblazer for the lengthy response. It was pretty well what I expected, knowing, at least basically, what a-mill's believe.I am not sure that I can give a worthy rebuttal here.
The centerpiece, if I may call it that, of our disagreement, is just what is meant by "great tribulation."
Now, I will grant you that all of the persecutions, troubles and trials (even to the point of martydom) that Christians have endured through this age can, and in fact, is called tribulations.
I would like, once more, to look at the Savior's words in Mt. 24: 21-22:
"For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened."
Now that is in the NKJV, but comparing other versions they read (the NIV does call it distress) pretty well the same. It is worthwhile to note here the reading in the NASB, which is renowned for being literal, it renders it: "a great tribulation." A: one, singular. But I will not harp on one included letter (A), but the total exclusion in the narrative of another letter (S) is worth pointing out. Certainly, a believer has more than one troublesome event in their lives. The Lord did not say: "For then you will have tribulations." No, it was, "For then there will be great tribulation..." Now, does that great tribulation concern believers (you would say the Church here) only? No, for, again the Lord says quite plainly: "And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved;"
No flesh left at all. "...unless those days were shortened..." what days? The Church age? The first century? It must be a period where "...those days were shortened..."

But let us go on. Brother Ed pointed out a time where people, "...hid themselves in the dennes..."
(KJV 1611).
But this is only one verse, one event, that, it occurs to me at least, the a-mill's position does not explain. There are many others. By no means enclusive:
When was there ever a time when no one could buy or sell, unless they had a certain mark?
When was there ever anyone who could display great signs and wonders, even making fire come down from heaven?
When was there ever anyone who sat in the temple of God, claiming that he is god?
When was there ever anyone taken alive and cast into the lake of fire?
Well, on and on I could go, but little point in that.
In short, I am a premill. It is not just because it is what I was taught. I am a premill because it, scriptually, makes the most sense, the pieces fit. Also, it does not concern me in the least who else happens to believe the same way. If it is a similar belief to Hal Lindsey (sp?), so be it.

 

WATCHMAN

Yes, my post was lengthy but I had to do it in order to answer your main point of the Olivet Discours - that is that the "elect"/Christians do not go through the "Great Tribulation." I made that as point on page 16 and had to finish it on page 17 of this thread.

Perhaps you missed page 16 where I think I did answer that question quite well as you made no mention of the Olivet Discourse presentation.
I went to great lengths to show that at each stage the elect were still here and that no specific verse ever showed where they had been "taken out."

In the end I also spoke of Rev's Great Tribulation and think I did answer your points quite well but you seemed to ignore my counter points.

You speak as though because the "thought that the elect goes through the tribulation" is not a "new" idea you were expecting to see a whole new perspective. I think some of it was new as not very many ever see in Matt. 24:30 that there are two groups of people on earth at the time of the Second Coming where each see His appearing in two different ways. I think that was worthy of addressing also.

I took quite pains to address each one of your views and yet I don't feel that my post, even though lengthy, was given the same consideration before moving onto another detour. My point is that if the elect ARE here as I believe was shown that they are, then the rest is irrelevant.

 

ed edward,

rev 20:4 is talking about who refuse or take thier mark of the beast all christian will be beheaded for refuse or worship and will regin with Jesus christ for enternal life.

rev 20:5-6 for frist resurrection at second coming of christ all have appoitmnet with last day judgement hebrew 9:27, 1 cor 15:50-53, 2 cor 5:6-10, I thess 4:15-17.

John 6:40,44,54 is refer to last day fit with rev 20:5-6.

brumleyj
amem

 

trailblazer, thanks for the reply. I did not mean to avoid any point on your post, but I was concentrating on the center point, that there will, indeed, be a, yet future great tribulation.
As to the Chuch at this point. I wanted to establish that this great tribulation is the judgement of God. The Church has "no condemnation" and as such, could not go through this judgement period.
You are equating them (in the passage you mentioned) that came out of great tribulation as being (at least some of them) as the Church.
In Rev. 2&3 you see Church, Church, Church. After 4:1: no mention of the Chuch-at all. There is no mention in the passages you mentioned as them being associated with the Church, Christ body, or any such term as the Chuch is usually refered to.
Have to go, more later, sorry.

 

Watchman: "As to the Chuch at this point. I wanted
to establish that this great tribulation is the judgement
of God. The Church has "no condemnation" and as such,
could not go through this judgement period."

Amen, Brother Watchman -- Preach it!

 

Brumleyj: "John 6:40,44,54 is refer to last day fit with rev 20:5-6."

Actually Revelation 20:5-6 doesn't mention "last day".
Of course, the "1,000 years" is mentioned.
2 Peter 3:8 & 3:10 show those 1,000 years as
"the Day of the Lord". But Rev 20:5-6 nor
2 Peter 3:8 & 3:10 show "the Day of the Lord"
as the "last day".

Consider "I will raise him up at the last day".
Let it be the definition of "last day".
"Last day" refers to the day God resurrects those
who believe in Jesus for salvation.
That resurrection of the saved takes plase at
the last day of the Church Age (AKA: Gentile Age,
Age of Grace) at the pretribulation rapture/resurrection.
So the day of the pretribulation rapture/resurrections
(the 7-year-day of the Tribulation period) is the
LAST DAY.

 

ed edwards,

2 Peter 3:10 is refering to Matthew 24:42-44,Luke 12:39-40,1 Thess 5:2-4, Rev 3:3, Rev 16:15-16.

2 peter 3:8 is refering to Ps 90:4 both scripture are fit together. compare to Lord's mind is shorter compare to human's mind is longer day. saints are waiting so long time since creation to present and wait for Jesus return in last day. to Jesus Christ as one day as thousand year.

Rev 22:13 Jesus is begining to the end.

Hebrew 13:8 Jesus Christ is remian same never change since creation to now

brumleyj
amem

 

WATCHMAN,

I’ve had enough time now to go over your original post in depth to answer each point more clearly from beginning to end and have tried to address each one of your points that you laid out in your first and last post. I have highlighted those portions as I went along.

Matthew 24:21-22 is an example of many recorded prophecies having both immediate and future fulfillment aspects to it. Just as there was immediate fulfillment of the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah there is also future fulfillment pictured here that is yet to come with the world being burned with fire. “Duality” is the manner of all prophecy from the time of the first prophecy in the Garden of Eden. The “you shall die” had two aspects to it – immediate and future. The immediate death was spiritual in nature but the future physical aspect of dying did not occur for another 930 years.

Now, what I don’t understand is this; why is it that it seems that dispensationalists can only see ONE aspect of Jesus’ prophecy in Matthew 24? Why would THE Prophet of all prophets be prophesying any differently here than with Adam and Eve? Especially, when he was answering their question about what they were to expect ahead of them. In his infinite wisdom, he also had it contain instruction for all Christians after 70 a.d. Jesus wanted them to be able to look back at the destruction of Jerusalem as their third example of confirming the fact that the latter destruction of the end of the world would end in fire? Thus, we have Noah and the flood, then Lot and Sodom, and lastly the remnant of apostles and believers out of the destruction of Jerusalem. This is why Jesus referred back to those two previous examples as seen best in Luke 17. With the addition of Matthew 24, all three pictures are there for warnings for all Christians of all time – up until their future fulfillments.

So, with that in mind, the account of the immediate aspect of fulfillment, as reported in Josephus’ History of the Wars of the Jews’ concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, 70 a.d. most definitely qualifies as the literal fulfillment of it. Truly, nothing like that had ever been recorded in the history books up until that point….

At this point, if you cannot see both literal and future aspects of the prophecy in Matthew 24, I see no reason to continue. However, I will go through once again some of the stumbling blocks.

To continue on with your concerns of verses 21-22, you might say, “Ok, so Jerusalem 70 a.d. might qualify as a Great Tribulation, but what about the “…nor ever shall be?” You might say that 6,000,000 Jews during the Holocaust would make that figure look rather miniscule indeed, and therefore it must be future, but the answer to that question would immediately follow.

1) If Jesus were saying that the days are going to be shortened because, otherwise “no flesh (no man) would be saved;” then just who is God shortening them for? For the sake of the elect! (As I said before on my previous post…”The word “saved” can either be speaking of “saved from anything or everything in general” to “the soul being saved from eternal death.” Here again, both aspects of prophecy are visible because only the elect are ever “soul saved.” But, why would it be necessary to shorten those days for the sake of the ”flesh that needs to be saved from physical death?” Because, the gospel was in it’s infancy stages. The commandment to spread the good news of the gospel went out from Jerusalem. The great commission was given to the Jews to proclaim the gospel to the world. Had each and every Jew been killed and no remnant saved from physical death, the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles would never have occurred! For the sake of the “future Gentile elect world” those days were shortened. You and I would not be here today had God put the candle out in 70 a.d. entirely!

2) In addition to this, as I said above concerning the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, it was God’s wrath upon the ungodly just as it was God’s wrath upon ungodly Jerusalem. Had he completely and in its entirety, poured out His wrath upon Jerusalem and “all ungodly flesh”, He essentially would have been bringing the world to a close at that time by destroying all mankind and the gospel age very short indeed.

And that’s primarily why you can have a Great Tribulation of 70 a.d. AND a Great Tribulation with the Christians going through their Great Tribulation prior to the Second Coming of Christ visibly coming in the clouds with both the just and the unjust present going through it.

I answered this in my last post also by posting a more learned individual than myself – Matthew Henry who was pre-Darby influence;
(quoting MH)---“…It is usual in the prophetical style to speak of things great and certain as near and just at hand, only to express the greatness and certainty of them. …The tribulation of those days includes not only the destruction of Jerusalem, but all the other tribulations which the church must pass through; not only its share in the calamities of the nations, but the tribulations peculiar to itself; while the nations are torn with wars, and the church with schisms, delusions, and persecutions, we cannot say that the tribulation of those days is over; the whole state of the church on earth is militant, we must count upon that; but when the church's tribulation is over, her warfare accomplished, and what is behind of the sufferings of Christ filled up, then look for the end.”(end quote)
In addition to this, I listed all of the verses in the NT that had the word “tribulation” in them and it show that Christians do go through “great tribulations” indeed! But, as to the “Great Tribulation” of Revelation? Keep reading.

Watchman, I cannot let this one go without serious Christian chastisement for saying that “Is it not reasonable to presume that the pouring out of God's wrath (in Revelation) is connected to the Lord's "great tribulation" of Matthew 24?” We are NOT to determine our beliefs based on human “reasoning! We are to go to scripture and let scripture tell us what we are to believe – even if those written words are confusing to us or are displeasing to us.”

Therefore, it seems to me that this may very well be the foundation of what dispensationalism is built upon – human reasoning!

For now, suffice it to say, that God’s wrath or punishment is not poured out on his elect. I will address that below, so keep reading.

You are absolutely correct on this – except that, you miss two important facts entirely. 1) That God’s wrath was not on Noah – it was upon the unregenerate. Noah is one of the elect. 2) that Noah was on earth and going through his own “great tribulation” before God shut him in and brought the rains down upon the wicked.

Thus, God’s allotted time for evil to exist before the flood was 120 years. Noah lived through that time of tribulation and was greatly distressed because of the sinfulness of those around him. (6:3; 7:1) And Noah’s “Great Tribulation” period? – seven days!(Ge 7:4) But scripture is very clear that God delivered Noah from his wrath and condemnation”on the very same day” he “took him out (a symbolical picture of rapture)”. This “on the same day” occurrence is stressed 3 times in Luke 17 and it was not ONE day before it.

I wouldn’t disagree with you in the sense that he was physically removed at the time that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah but I think you are also missing the point here too that Lot went through his period of “great tribulation” prior to being taken out, of which “rapture” of the saints and punishment of the wicked occur at the very same time as one major event!

Now, if you look again in Luke 17, you will see where Lot was delivered from his “Great Tribulation” period on “the very same day” that God’s wrath and condemnation fell – not one day before it either!

Now here, you’re have strayed when you use Romans 8:1 to imply that if the elect goes through the Great Tribulation, it means that God would be “condemning” the just along with the unjust because that is not what Romans 8:1 is saying at all! That would be a violation of what he is here saying in Romans and you again are seriously in error of your interpretation. Earlier, in Romans 2: 15-16 Paul very clearly says;

But in Romans 8:35 Paul asks a rhetorical question by saying;

No, no, no,….going through tribulation, even Great Tribulation, does NOT mean that God is “condemning” his elect of church!!!

You ask; “how could it be?”

Once again, GREAT can either mean intensity or a great period of time or it can mean BOTH.

I love the examples of Noah and Lot, but especially of the parallel account of Luke 17 because Jesus is there indicating more clearly than anywhere else that the historical events of the past pictures of judgment, separation, punishment and “removal of the righteous” occurred on the same day because he says it three times for emphasis. Then he proceeds to give us pictures of the types of separation, as you say above, concerning those in the fields, as our examples that will occur when He appears in the clouds on the last day!

I HUMBLY SUBMIT THAT YOU MUST RETHINK YOUR POSITION BECAUSE OUR GOING THROUGH THE TRIBULATION DOES NOT MEAN THAT GOD’S WRATH HAS BEEN POURED OUT –YET!

(The response to your last post is continued on my next post following this one)
*

 

WATCHMAN,

I’ve had enough time now to go over your original post in depth to answer each point more clearly from beginning to end and have tried to address each one of your points that you laid out in your first and last post. I have highlighted those portions as I went along.

Matthew 24:21-22 is an example of many recorded prophecies having both immediate and future fulfillment aspects to it. Just as there was immediate fulfillment of the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah there is also future fulfillment pictured here that is yet to come with the world being burned with fire. “Duality” is the manner of all prophecy from the time of the first prophecy in the Garden of Eden. The “you shall die” had two aspects to it – immediate and future. The immediate death was spiritual in nature but the future physical aspect of dying did not occur for another 930 years.

Now, what I don’t understand is this; why is it that it seems that dispensationalists can only see ONE aspect of Jesus’ prophecy in Matthew 24? Why would THE Prophet of all prophets be prophesying any differently here than with Adam and Eve? Especially, when he was answering their question about what they were to expect ahead of them. In his infinite wisdom, he also had it contain instruction for all Christians after 70 a.d. Jesus wanted them to be able to look back at the destruction of Jerusalem as their third example of confirming the fact that the latter destruction of the end of the world would end in fire? Thus, we have Noah and the flood, then Lot and Sodom, and lastly the remnant of apostles and believers out of the destruction of Jerusalem. This is why Jesus referred back to those two previous examples as seen best in Luke 17. With the addition of Matthew 24, all three pictures are there for warnings for all Christians of all time – up until their future fulfillments.

So, with that in mind, the account of the immediate aspect of fulfillment, as reported in Josephus’ History of the Wars of the Jews’ concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, 70 a.d. most definitely qualifies as the literal fulfillment of it. Truly, nothing like that had ever been recorded in the history books up until that point….

At this point, if you cannot see both literal and future aspects of the prophecy in Matthew 24, I see no reason to continue. However, I will go through once again some of the stumbling blocks.

To continue on with your concerns of verses 21-22, you might say, “Ok, so Jerusalem 70 a.d. might qualify as a Great Tribulation, but what about the “…nor ever shall be?” You might say that 6,000,000 Jews during the Holocaust would make that figure look rather miniscule indeed, and therefore it must be future, but the answer to that question would immediately follow.

1) If Jesus were saying that the days are going to be shortened because, otherwise “no flesh (no man) would be saved;” then just who is God shortening them for? For the sake of the elect! (As I said before on my previous post…”The word “saved” can either be speaking of “saved from anything or everything in general” to “the soul being saved from eternal death.” Here again, both aspects of prophecy are visible because only the elect are ever “soul saved.” But, why would it be necessary to shorten those days for the sake of the ”flesh that needs to be saved from physical death?” Because, the gospel was in it’s infancy stages. The commandment to spread the good news of the gospel went out from Jerusalem. The great commission was given to the Jews to proclaim the gospel to the world. Had each and every Jew been killed and no remnant saved from physical death, the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles would never have occurred! For the sake of the “future Gentile elect world” those days were shortened. You and I would not be here today had God put the candle out in 70 a.d. entirely!

2) In addition to this, as I said above concerning the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah, it was God’s wrath upon the ungodly just as it was God’s wrath upon ungodly Jerusalem. Had he completely and in its entirety, poured out His wrath upon Jerusalem and “all ungodly flesh”, He essentially would have been bringing the world to a close at that time by destroying all mankind and the gospel age very short indeed.

And that’s primarily why you can have a Great Tribulation of 70 a.d. AND a Great Tribulation with the Christians going through their Great Tribulation prior to the Second Coming of Christ visibly coming in the clouds with both the just and the unjust present going through it.

I answered this in my last post also by posting a more learned individual than myself – Matthew Henry who was pre-Darby influence;
(quoting MH)---“…It is usual in the prophetical style to speak of things great and certain as near and just at hand, only to express the greatness and certainty of them. …The tribulation of those days includes not only the destruction of Jerusalem, but all the other tribulations which the church must pass through; not only its share in the calamities of the nations, but the tribulations peculiar to itself; while the nations are torn with wars, and the church with schisms, delusions, and persecutions, we cannot say that the tribulation of those days is over; the whole state of the church on earth is militant, we must count upon that; but when the church's tribulation is over, her warfare accomplished, and what is behind of the sufferings of Christ filled up, then look for the end.”(end quote)
In addition to this, I listed all of the verses in the NT that had the word “tribulation” in them and it show that Christians do go through “great tribulations” indeed! But, as to the “Great Tribulation” of Revelation? Keep reading.

Watchman, I cannot let this one go without serious Christian chastisement for saying that “Is it not reasonable to presume that the pouring out of God's wrath (in Revelation) is connected to the Lord's "great tribulation" of Matthew 24?” We are NOT to determine our beliefs based on human “reasoning! We are to go to scripture and let scripture tell us what we are to believe – even if those written words are confusing to us or are displeasing to us.”

Therefore, it seems to me that this may very well be the foundation of what dispensationalism is built upon – human reasoning!

For now, suffice it to say, that God’s wrath or punishment is not poured out on his elect. I will address that below, so keep reading.

You are absolutely correct on this – except that, you miss two important facts entirely. 1) That God’s wrath was not on Noah – it was upon the unregenerate. Noah is one of the elect. 2) that Noah was on earth and going through his own “great tribulation” before God shut him in and brought the rains down upon the wicked.

Thus, God’s allotted time for evil to exist before the flood was 120 years. Noah lived through that time of tribulation and was greatly distressed because of the sinfulness of those around him. (6:3; 7:1) And Noah’s “Great Tribulation” period? – seven days!(Ge 7:4) But scripture is very clear that God delivered Noah from his wrath and condemnation”on the very same day” he “took him out (a symbolical picture of rapture)”. This “on the same day” occurrence is stressed 3 times in Luke 17 and it was not ONE day before it.

I wouldn’t disagree with you in the sense that he was physically removed at the time that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah but I think you are also missing the point here too that Lot went through his period of “great tribulation” prior to being taken out, of which “rapture” of the saints and punishment of the wicked occur at the very same time as one major event!

Now, if you look again in Luke 17, you will see where Lot was delivered from his “Great Tribulation” period on “the very same day” that God’s wrath and condemnation fell – not one day before it either!

Now here, you’re have strayed when you use Romans 8:1 to imply that if the elect goes through the Great Tribulation, it means that God would be “condemning” the just along with the unjust because that is not what Romans 8:1 is saying at all! That would be a violation of what he is here saying in Romans and you again are seriously in error of your interpretation. Earlier, in Romans 2: 15-16 Paul very clearly says;

But in Romans 8:35 Paul asks a rhetorical question by saying;

No, no, no,….going through tribulation, even Great Tribulation, does NOT mean that God is “condemning” his elect of church!!!

You ask; “how could it be?”

Once again, GREAT can either mean intensity or a great period of time or it can mean BOTH.

(TO BE CONTINUED ON THE NEXT POST)

 

(a continuation of the above thought)

I love the examples of Noah and Lot, but especially of the parallel account of Luke 17 because Jesus is there indicating more clearly than anywhere else that the historical events of the past pictures of judgment, separation, punishment and “removal of the righteous” occurred on the same day because he says it three times for emphasis. Then he proceeds to give us pictures of the types of separation, as you say above, concerning those in the fields, as our examples that will occur when He appears in the clouds on the last day!

I HUMBLY SUBMIT THAT YOU MUST RETHINK YOUR POSITION BECAUSE OUR GOING THROUGH THE TRIBULATION DOES NOT MEAN THAT GOD’S WRATH HAS BEEN POURED OUT –YET!

(RESPONSE TO WATCHMAN’S LAST POST)

Now, this is the portion of your last post that I would like to address as this answers the other points in it also.

I agree with this as I went into it in the previous post today. I also listed all of the uses of the word “tribulation” on my original lengthy response and showed where each use of that word indicated that it is the church that endures all of them. I also included the more serious use of the “Great Tribulation.”

I guess I just don’t get your confusion of the words “those days” because they obviously refer to “those days of the great tribulation.” It’s the period of time that God allots for it. In Noah’s time it was 120 years.

Now, what about the “Great Tribulation” in Revelations? You say the “believers” don’t go through the Great Tribulation in Revelations? Well, then you have to exclude these verses in Revelation then.

Now, I think even you would agree that only martyrs have the right to wear the “white robes” would you not? And would you also agree that this verse is saying that there will be more coming up until the full number of the “elect” is complete?

Next is Rev. 7:9-17 but only to the references of “the white robed saints.”

Now, who has“clean white robes?” All those who came out of the “great tribulation.” But let’s go further and look at the last reference to those saints wearing white robes.

In order to be entitled to wear those white robes, we must be prepared to go through any tribulation – whether that is Great or small. Gill has this to say about those who come out of the Great Tribulation. I can’t say it better than this.

But as far as “ not caring what anybody else, like Gill or M. Henry says or thinks, I think it is wise to take under serious consideration what the prevailing thought by the most well respected scholars was prior to the new thought that entered the end times church by John Nelson Darby. Why? - Because we are all disciples of someone. If the theory of dispensationalism is not God ordained, then it is “the Ten Commandments” of John Nelson Darby and he is your apostle, prophet and leader.

You say this as your conclusion; “I am a premill because it, scripturally, makes the most sense, the pieces fit.”[/quote]

But I say; Once again, we are not to “think first about what makes sense to us” in our faulty human minds and then go to scripture for verification of it. It is the first downfall of all faulty religions.