The pre-tribulation rapture

Biblewriter said:

I am not aware that my hard proof has even been seen by Thomas Ice.

Click to expand...

Why not? He'd be ecstatic to see HARD PROOF which would allow him to correct his error.

Biblewriter said:

And your attempt to debunk my HARD PROOF was a miserable failure.

Click to expand...

Evidence?

Biblewriter said:

I completely agree with all the quotations you have posted here, other than someone calling the church, "the gentile church." But these are distinctly different from what you are pretending we teach.

Click to expand...

Since you insinuated earlier that I was not telling the truth, maybe the above is the closest thing that I can get as an apology.

Apparently, nobody knows who "we" would be in your statement above.

There are the extremes of Dual Covenant Theology, like John Hagee's claim that modern Jews do not need faith in Christ, because they are under a different covenant with God.

Then there are those such as yourself who deny that Hagee is a Dispensationalist, even though he clearly teaches the basic tenets of the doctrine.

Dispensatioanalists often run from, and deny, what the founders of the doctrine taught.

Dr. Darrel Bock, of Dallas Theological Seminary, has adopted what is now known as "Progressive" Dispensational Theology.
Since the older "Classic" version of the doctrine is clearly un-scriptural, that was an obvious attempt to make the doctrine work.
However, if you start out wrong, you will usually end up wrong.
If fruit is rotten to the core, attempts to trim it is a waste of time.

You guys cannot even agree on your own doctrine, so how are the rest of us supposed to know what you believe, or teach?

.

jgr said:

Why not? He'd be ecstatic to see HARD PROOF which would allow him to correct his error.



Evidence?

Click to expand...

I THINK he has just recently seen it, as my book has now been published. But he has clearly not had time to respond to it yet.

BABerean2 said:

Since you insinuated earlier that I was not telling the truth, maybe the above is the closest thing that I can get as an apology.

Click to expand...

Your "apology" will not be forthcoming. As I clearly meant, and mean, what I said. And this was not even approximately an apology, as what I pointed out is that what these men said is not what you pretended they were saying.

Apparently, nobody knows who "

Click to expand...

we" would be in your statement above.

Click to expand...

There are the extremes of Dual Covenant Theology, like John Hagee's claim that modern Jews do not need faith in Christ, because they are under a different covenant with God.

Then there are those such as yourself who deny that Hagee is a Dispensationalist, even though he clearly teaches the basic tenets of the doctrine.

Click to expand...

Neither myself nor anyone else I know about ever denied that John Hagee was a Dispensationalist. What we said is that his "teachings" are not accepted by any Dispensational teacher of repute among Dispensationalists generally.

Dispensatioanalists often run from, and deny, what the founders of the doctrine taught.

Click to expand...

Dr. Darrel Bock, of Dallas Theological Seminary, has adopted what is now known as "Progressive" Dispensational Theology.

Click to expand...

Since the older "Classic" version of the doctrine is clearly un-scriptural, that was an obvious attempt to make the doctrine work.
However, if you start out wrong, you will usually end up wrong.
If fruit is rotten to the core, attempts to trim it is a waste of time.

You guys cannot even agree on your own doctrine, so how are the rest of us supposed to know what you believe, or teach?

.

Click to expand...

And do Covenant Theologians, Amils, or the advocates of any other doctrine all agree?

jgr said:

Why not? He'd be ecstatic to see HARD PROOF which would allow him to correct his error.



Evidence?

Click to expand...

I have already given that, repeatedly.

Biblewriter said:

I have already given that, repeatedly.

Click to expand...

It's been debunked, repeatedly.

Biblewriter said:

I THINK he has just recently seen it, as my book has now been published. But he has clearly not had time to respond to it yet.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that, in all the time you've been espousing your view of Irenaeus, you've never written Ice to correct him?

What's been the problem?

Biblewriter said:

Your "apology" will not be forthcoming. As I clearly meant, and mean, what I said. And this was not even approximately an apology, as what I pointed out is that what these men said is not what you pretended they were saying.



Neither myself nor anyone else I now about ever denied that John Hagee was a Dispensationalist. What we said is that his "teachings" are not accepted by any Dispensational teacher of repute among Dispensationalists generally.


And do Covenant Theologians, Amils, or the advocates of any other doctrine all agree?

Click to expand...

Those I know agree that nobody will be saved outside of the Church of Jesus Christ, during a future time.

.

Biblewriter said:

I THINK he has just recently seen it, as my book has now been published. But he has clearly not had time to respond to it yet.

Click to expand...

Dr. Michael Brown is the founder of Fire Church in Concord, N.C..
He is a former Orthodox Jew, who has rejected the pre-trib removal of the Church, as taught by modern Dispensational Theology.

Here he responds to pre-trib arguments.


.

jgr said:

Are you saying that, in all the time you've been espousing your view of Irenaeus, you've never written Ice to correct him?

What's been the problem?

Click to expand...

I have personally interacted with Thomas Ice on other subjects. And he thought that his personal opinion had greater weight than scripture. So I have never even bothered.

Biblewriter said:

And he thought that his personal opinion had greater weight than scripture.

Click to expand...

The above seems to be common among those attempting to defend the Two Peoples of God doctrine.


Jer_31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—

Mat_26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mar_14:24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.

Luk_22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

1Co_11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

2Co_3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Heb_8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH—

Heb_8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Heb_9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Heb_12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
.

Biblewriter said:

I have personally interacted with Thomas Ice on other subjects. And he thought that his personal opinion had greater weight than scripture. So I have never even bothered.

Click to expand...

You should at least have solicited his input, because you may have learned something of which you were unaware. He said:

"However, the very next statement speaks of believers in the tribulation. When taken within the context of all of Irenaeus’ writings on these subjects, it appears that he was not teaching pretribulationism."

Sounds like he was broadly knowledgeable about Irenaeus.

jgr said:

You should at least have solicited his input, because you may have learned something of which you were unaware. He said:

"However, the very next statement speaks of believers in the tribulation. When taken within the context of all of Irenaeus’ writings on these subjects, it appears that he was not teaching pretribulationism."

Sounds like he was broadly knowledgeable about Irenaeus.

Click to expand...

Actually, this statement by Ice showed me how little he actually knew about the subject.
I am the only person I know about who has actually analyzed everything Irenaeus said about the timing of end time events. In my book, I clearly demonstrate why his conclusion was incorrect. And my comments were made in answer to his erroneous statement, although I did not mention either him or his statement.

Biblewriter said:

Having personally devoted well over forty years to an intense study of ancient writings, I am one of the very few who has actually analyzed what was said by Irenaeus and the other ancient writers who treated this subject. And I can confidently assure you that at least three truly ancient writers very clearly and distinctly taught a "catching away" of the church (no, they did not use the modern word "rapture") well before the Lord comes in power and glory to judge the world for its wickedness.

Click to expand...

The first time I experienced someone using the Pseudo-Ephraem passage,to support an early teaching of the pre-tribulation rapture,it was presented with as much confidence as you express above.The relative brevity of the writing facilitated my examination of the same and allowed me to see that the use of the passage to support the pre-trib.rapture was completely contrary to the views expressed in entire writing.You would have to present the writings you refer to and enough of the same to establish a context,before I could believe anything said to support an early pre-trib. teaching.The scriptures do not teach a pre-trib. coming of the Lord and so reliable ancient writings would not have this teaching either.

Biblewriter said:

But I point this out ONLY to clearly demonstrate the falsehood of the claim that a rapture was never taught before the 1830s. As to whether or not the doctrine is correct, who first taught it and when it was first taught are BOTH totally irrelevant.

Click to expand...

The important thing is the scriptures do not teach a pre-trib. coming of the Lord and hence the ancient writings can only be used to support/deny the same and not to establish what is true.

Biblewriter said:

As to the rest of the reasoning you have presented in your string of posts, you are making the common error that the Lord is only returning one time. There is not even one scripture that says this. And there are many that clearly show this is incorrect.

Click to expand...

To the contrary,the scriptures plainly teach one coming of the Lord.There is nothing which speaks to a secret coming followed by an appearing after a 3.5 or 7 year interval.

Biblewriter said:

Actually, this statement by Ice showed me how little he actually knew about the subject.
I am the only person I know about who has actually analyzed everything Irenaeus said about the timing of end time events. In my book, I clearly demonstrate why his conclusion was incorrect. And my comments were made in answer to his erroneous statement, although I did not mention either him or his statement.

Click to expand...

Who else of recognized standing in the dispensational community endorses your claims over Ice's?

Names, times, and quotes, please.

safswan said:

The first time I experienced someone using the Pseudo-Ephraem passage,to support an early teaching of the pre-tribulation rapture,it was presented with as much confidence as you express above.The relative brevity of the writing facilitated my examination of the same and allowed me to see that the use of the passage to support the pre-trib.rapture was completely contrary to the views expressed in entire writing.You would have to present the writings you refer to and enough of the same to establish a context,before I could believe anything said to support an early pre-trib. teaching.The scriptures do not teach a pre-trib. coming of the Lord and so reliable ancient writings would not have this teaching either.



The important thing is the scriptures do not teach a pre-trib. coming of the Lord and hence the ancient writings can only be used to support/deny the same and not to establish what is true.



To the contrary,the scriptures plainly teach one coming of the Lord.There is nothing which speaks to a secret coming followed by an appearing after a 3.5 or 7 year interval.

Click to expand...

I have addressed this argument in detail in the following threads:

Ancient teaching of a rapture before the great tribulation.
Dispensationalist Only - Ancient teaching of a rapture before the great tribulation.


A Scriptural Precedent A Scriptural Precedent

Biblewriter said:

I have addressed this argument in detail in the following threads:

Ancient teaching of a rapture before the great tribulation.
Dispensationalist Only - Ancient teaching of a rapture before the great tribulation.


A Scriptural Precedent A Scriptural Precedent

Click to expand...

Dr. John C. Reeves, who is an expert in ancient texts, has analyzed the Psuedo-Ephraem text, and has provided the Syriac version in the link below.

Pseudo-Ephrem (Syriac)

Since Grant Jeffrey was the first one to make the claim that it supports the pre-trib doctrine, we should all be suspicious.

Pretribulationist Revisionism
(Grant Jeffrey’s revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints)
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/rapture_22.pdf

.

BABerean2 said:

Dr. John C. Reeves, who is an expert in ancient texts, has analyzed the Psuedo-Ephraem text, and has provided the Syriac version in the link below.

Pseudo-Ephrem (Syriac)

Since Grant Jeffrey was the first one to make the claim that it supports the pre-trib doctrine, we should all be suspicious.

Pretribulationist Revisionism
(Grant Jeffrey’s revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints)
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/rapture_22.pdf

.

Click to expand...

This is a different article, written by a different person. And I have both articles stored on my computer.

We have already been though this a number of times, and you know perfectly well that these two articles are so radically different that they could not even possibly have been written by the same person. The fact that both of these unknown writers came to be called pseudo-Ephraem is trivial.

And as a side note, I did not get my information from Grant Jefferys, but from the source cited by Grant Jefferys. which is: “The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition,” by Paul J. Alexander, ed. By Dorthy deF. Abrahamse, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985, 2.10. Cited there from “Abhandlungen und Predigten aus den zwei letzten Jahrhunderten des kirchlichen Altertums und dem Anfang des Mittelaters,” C. P. Caspari, ed. Briefe, Christiania, 1890, 208-20.

This book is out of print, so it has been made available online in its entirety, So I downloaded the entire book. If you actually cared about the truth, instead of winning arguments, you would do the same.

Biblewriter said:

We have already been though this a number of times, and you know perfectly well that these two articles are so radically different that they could not even possibly have been written by the same person. The fact that both of these unknown writers came to be called pseudo-Ephraem is trivial.

Click to expand...

The fact that we have no idea who the author is would not be "trivial" in the eyes of any unbiased witness.

If you went into a court of law and offered testimony without the identity of the witness, how would the judge treat that evidence?

If the person who wrote the article was a Satanist, instead of a follower of Christ, would be an important fact many of us would like to know.

As for the truth...

Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, modern Dispensational Theology falls apart, and the pretrib removal of the Church falls with it.

Based on Matthew 10:5-7, and Romans 1:16, and Acts of the Apostles 28:28, and Galatians 1:14-18, the Gospel was taken "first" to the Jews for about 7 years, before Paul took the Gospel to the Gentiles. This was the 70th week of Daniel during the first century.
Therefore, there will be no future 7 year period when God deals with the modern State of Israel, after the Church has been removed from the planet.

Based on John 10:16 there is only one people of God.

Based on Galatians 3:16-29, Jesus Christ is the one seed to whom the promise to Abraham was made, and I am Abraham's seed, and inheritor of the promise, through faith in Christ.

Based on 2 Peter 3:10-13, there is no eternal land promise on this rotten, sin-cursed, planet.

Instead, we find the eternal land promise in Hebrews 11:15-16.

For many years the doctrine found in the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible dominated a large number of Baptist churches in the United States.
Today many of those churches have seen the truth about that doctrine and are exposing it to the light.

.

BABerean2 said:

The fact that we have no idea who the author is would not be "trivial" in the eyes of any unbiased witness.

If you went into a court of law and offered testimony without the identity of the witness, how would the judge treat that evidence?

If the person who wrote the article was a Satanist, instead of a follower of Christ, would be an important fact many of us would like to know.

As for the truth...

Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, modern Dispensational Theology falls apart, and the pretrib removal of the Church falls with it.

Based on Matthew 10:5-7, and Romans 1:16, and Acts of the Apostles 28:28, and Galatians 1:14-18, the Gospel was taken "first" to the Jews for about 7 years, before Paul took the Gospel to the Gentiles. This was the 70th week of Daniel during the first century.
Therefore, there will be no future 7 year period when God deals with the modern State of Israel, after the Church has been removed from the planet.

Based on John 10:16 there is only one people of God.

Based on Galatians 3:16-29, Jesus Christ is the one seed to whom the promise to Abraham was made, and I am Abraham's seed, and inheritor of the promise, through faith in Christ.

Based on 2 Peter 3:10-13, there is no eternal land promise on this rotten, sin-cursed, planet.

Instead, we find the eternal land promise in Hebrews 11:15-16.

For many years the doctrine found in the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible dominated a large number of Baptist churches in the United States.
Today many of those churches have seen the truth about that doctrine and are exposing it to the light.

.

Click to expand...

The fact that the article exists, is, IN AND BY ITSELF, all the proof needed in this case. For the ONLY point of contention is whether or not the doctrine was taught. And the article is PROOF that it was indeed taught. And it is known to have been in church libraries a thousand years before Darby was born.

This puts an absolute end to rational debate. The point is proved, and ABSOLUTELY proved. Further cavil is nothing but manifest dishonesty.