Rapture Pre,Mid or Posttribulation?

Originally Posted by romans6and6

I have the commentaries of Clark, Henry, Jamieson/Fausset/Brown, and others on a Bible study software. It is very difficult to cut and paste, probably due to copyright infringements, but I did manage to cut and paste some of Henry’s and Brown’s commentary on Daniel 9:27.

I must own up to being mistaken here. I had not read Henry's or JFB's commentaries on the Daniel passage before, though I thought I had. JFB's commentary is in error because it cites the destruction of Jerusalem in 79 AD, and it was not. It was, as everyone knows, 70 AD. That places Jesus' crucifixion at 30 AD, and by the Jewish calendar, that would be exactly 483 years from the time the pools and fountains were rebuilt in Jerusalem. The fact these commentaries err in their interpretation of this passage does not negate the fact they saw the pre-trib rapture taught in the Bible. Of chapter four of Revelation, when John has been raptured into heaven, Henry writes:

He saw four-and-twenty seats round about the throne, not empty, but filled with four-and-twenty elders, presbyters, representing, very probably, the whole church of God, both in the Old-Testament and in the New-Testament state; not the ministers of the church, but rather the representatives of the people. Their sitting denotes their honour, rest, and satisfaction; their sitting about the throne signifies their relation to God, their nearness to him, the sight and enjoyment they have of him. They are clothed in white raiment, the righteousness of the saints, both imputed and inherent; they had on their heads crowns of gold, signifying the honour and authority given them of God, and the glory they have with him. All these may in a lower sense be applied to the gospel church on earth, in its worshipping assemblies; and, in the higher sense, to the church triumphant in heaven. [my emphasis added]

In chapter five, when Jesus, the Lamb of God, is identified as worthy to open the book of seven seals, Henry writes:

The church [my emphasis aded] begins the doxology, as being more immediately concerned in it (Revelation 5:8), the four living creatures, and the four-and-twenty elders, the Christian people, under their minister, lead up the chorus. Here observe, (1.) The object of their worship--the Lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ; it is the declared will of God that all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father; for he has the same nature.

The Lamb breaks the seals, and the plagues of judgment begin to afflict the earth.

You, sir, have been taught by men, not by the Word.

I went to the past commentators only to show that the modern day end-time doctrine is basically new to the church, and that men of the past who have studied the Bible for decades saw nothing of a pre-tribulation rapture of the church, “the” antichrist “arising” and signing a treaty with Israel and then breaking that “covenant” in the middle of Daniel’s 70th week, and a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem to perform the abomination of desolations.

It is the modern church that has been taught and brainwashed by man for over a century now. Everyone is basically taught this from a young Christian. It is as if a tape recorder in placed in their thinking with the typical end-time doctrine that almost everyone believes. I was taught this typical way over 20 years ago.

You gave the Scripture is Revelation 4 about John being “in the Spirit” and then concluded that this is talking about the rapture of the church. But the same term was also used in Revelation 1:10 – “in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” – does that now mean that we are to read another rapture into the mix?

It is the modern end-time doctrine that “reads” things into Scriptures that simply are not there.

And it all started with Darby and Scofield’s Commentary Bible. This Bible has notes in its margins that talk about the antichrist in Daniel 9:27, and the typical end-time scenario is written throughout its pages. This then caught on in Evangelical circles and before you knew it, everyone from the Pentecostals to the Baptist were all spouting the same things.

I already gave the example of the term “the antichrist” which is used by the modern gospel, but not found anywhere in the Bible.

Another example is the Apostle Paul talking about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ as found in 2Thessalonians 2:1:

“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto Him."


They divide this into two comings – one the pre-tribulation rapture of the church, and the other the second coming when he physically returns. They do this with all the second coming/rapture Scriptures. They say that this one if referring only to the rapture and that this other one is referring to the second coming.

Again, this does not pass the “desert island” test, and it does not pass credible Bible teaching, and it does not pass credible Bible Scholars before the Scofield brainwashing of the church.

But this Scripture in 2 Thessalonians is just talking about one event – the Second Coming of Christ when he will come to reward the righteous, and to judge the wicked. In fact there is only one second coming of Christ, not a rapture and then 7 or 3 and ½ years later, the second coming.

Originally Posted by romans6and6

I went to the past commentators only to show that the modern day end-time doctrine is basically new to the church, and that men of the past who have studied the Bible for decades saw nothing of a pre-tribulation rapture of the church, “the” antichrist “arising” and signing a treaty with Israel and then breaking that “covenant” in the middle of Daniel’s 70th week, and a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem to perform the abomination of desolations.

And you were proven wrong. Henry believed that in 1706. As he died in 1711, he didn't revise it later in his life. You can equivocate and excuse your opinions all you want, but they don't hold up to the biblical measure.

Henry mentioned nothing about the rapture of the church in his commentary on Revelation 4. He actually pointed out that John was also "in the Spirit" in Revelation 1. If he thought that this was a foreshadow of the rapture of the church before the tribulation, he would have pointed it out in Rev. 4, and he did not.

This was just a scene in Heaven of all the dead saints, both old and new testament up to that point in time. There will be other saints who will go to heaven throughout the end-times, and some will be martyred and come out of "great tribulation." (Revelation 7:14)

In my original post 18 on this subject, I mistakenly wrote commentary instead of concordance.

The "desert island" test includes a Bible and a concordance only.

Post

__________________

There are Pentecostals that believe in post? that's interesting, thought it was almost a mandatory to be pre, partial or mid heh

__________________

Originally Posted by Faith_Warrior

There are Pentecostals that believe in post? that's interesting, thought it was almost a mandatory to be pre, partial or mid heh

I've actually never met a Pentecostal or Charismatic who were "pre"

That's what WoF is, isn't it? I mean pentecostal/charismatic, though they have their own teachers. One of my nieces now goes to a pentecostal church, she accepts pre. I don't know if they teach it, but that is what she believes. I started at a Apostolic church at 12, but I don't recall their position on eschatology, they were always too busy interrupting the message with shouts and funny sounding words no one could understand or interpret ("tongues").

__________________

Actually most are. The AG doctrinal statement includes the requisite for ministerial credentialing a belief in the immanent return of Christ which is a core component of pre-trib eschatology . . . IOW NOTHING needs to happen BEFORE Christ returns . . . for the post tribber the tribulation must happen . . . so the return of Christ is NOT immanent.

Most evangelicals are pre trib . . . the ones who are not are usually reformationists of some kind (of which reformed is a portion of the same camp).

The funny thing is that so many people believe the pre-trib position who are also cessationists! Ironic . . .

__________________