The Fatal Flaw in Dispensationalism

Biblewriter said:

Historicism is the doctrine that most of Bible prophecy has been fulfilled during the many centuries between the time of Christ and the present. It differs from Preterism in that Preterism thinks that most of Bible prophecy was fulfilled in the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Click to expand...

I am not a Historicist. As you can see from my posts, I am an Idealist. I believe Revelation is 7 recaps. This would probably be the major Amil view today, dwarfing Partial Preterism. Historicism is marginal today.

sovereigngrace said:

He kept the law, He fulfilled the law, but preached the kingdom of God. This kingdom was entered spiritually by faith. It was not of this world, like the Premil theory.

Click to expand...

Sovereigngrace,

1. Once again you have not answered the question.
Let me ask it this way, did Jesus teach the death, burial and resurrection under the Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God message to the Jews? Jerry Kelso

jerry kelso said:

Sovereigngrace,

1. Once again you have not answered the question.
Let me ask it this way, did Jesus teach the death, burial and resurrection under the Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God message to the Jews? Jerry Kelso

Click to expand...

Of course!!!

sovereigngrace said:

Of course!!!

Click to expand...

1. I knew that but I just wanted to make sure you were clear since you were big on plain statements.

2. I am sorry to inform you that you are wrong.
Matthew 18:22-23; Peter didn’t have a clue about the plan of redemption was about the cross and that is why Jesus rebuked him and said he didn’t savor the things of God.
He was also rebuking Satan for he was using Peter. This is a double reference.
John 6:50-58 show the disciples didn’t understand eating Christ flesh and drinking his blood meant his crucifixion.
They only knew he had the words to eternal life.

3. The law was holy and good and spiritual read Romans 7:12,14.
Salvation was not of this world at anytime or manmade.
Who told you pretribbers believe that?
Yes it is is true they had to keep the commandments to be blessed as in the Sermon on the Mount Matthew 5:1-21 and to enter in the kingdom and have eternal life.
But salvation in every age was saved by grace through faith Romans 4:1-6. for it took unmerited favor that God would save man and faith on man’s part for without faith it is impossible to please God.

4. Hebrews 9:16-17, says it took the death of the testator for the testament to be in force.
Matthew 26:28 say the New Testament is his blood he shed. This didn’t happen till Calvary.
If Jesus would have taught the New Covenant while under the age of law they would have stoned him for false teaching.
They already wanted to stone him for making himself equal with God.

5. The KoH and the KoG message was different than the death, burial, and resurrection message they preached on the Day of Pentecost 4:2.

6. Any New Covenant related information was to his disciples after the nation rejected him Matthew 23:37-39. Why? To prepare them for their role in the church.
In John, Jesus told them about the Holy Spirit that would come to take his place. Things of that nature that were prophetic.
So.....no...... Jesus did not teach the New Covenant teachings!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let me ask you this, the Sermon on the Mount, how would a Jew understand and interpret that in Jesus day? They knew what he meant so do you think it has the same meaning for Christian gentiles under the New Covenant? Let me know. Jerry Kelso

jerry kelso said:

1. I knew that but I just wanted to make sure you were clear since you were big on plain statements.

2. I am sorry to inform you that you are wrong.
Matthew 18:22-23; Peter didn’t have a clue about the plan of redemption was about the cross and that is why Jesus rebuked him and said he didn’t savor the things of God.
He was also rebuking Satan for he was using Peter. This is a double reference.
John 6:50-58 show the disciples didn’t understand eating Christ flesh and drinking his blood meant his crucifixion.
They only knew he had the words to eternal life.

3. The law was holy and good and spiritual read Romans 7:12,14.
Salvation was not of this world at anytime or manmade.
Who told you pretribbers believe that?
Yes it is is true they had to keep the commandments to be blessed as in the Sermon on the Mount Matthew 5:1-21 and to enter in the kingdom and have eternal life.
But salvation in every age was saved by grace through faith Romans 4:1-6. for it took unmerited favor that God would save man and faith on man’s part for without faith it is impossible to please God.

4. Hebrews 9:16-17, says it took the death of the testator for the testament to be in force.
Matthew 26:28 say the New Testament is his blood he shed. This didn’t happen till Calvary.
If Jesus would have taught the New Covenant while under the age of law they would have stoned him for false teaching.
They already wanted to stone him for making himself equal with God.

5. The KoH and the KoG message was different than the death, burial, and resurrection message they preached on the Day of Pentecost 4:2.

6. Any New Covenant related information was to his disciples after the nation rejected him Matthew 23:37-39. Why? To prepare them for their role in the church.
In John, Jesus told them about the Holy Spirit that would come to take his place. Things of that nature that were prophetic.
So.....no...... Jesus did not teach the New Covenant teachings!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let me ask you this, the Sermon on the Mount, how would a Jew understand and interpret that in Jesus day? They knew what he meant so do you think it has the same meaning for Christian gentiles under the New Covenant? Let me know. Jerry Kelso

Click to expand...

I will address this soon. At what stage are you going to address the multiple posts that you have dodged on this thread? Can you address posts 594, 600, 631, 731, 742, 743, 747, 752, and 757?

jerry kelso said:

1. I knew that but I just wanted to make sure you were clear since you were big on plain statements.

2. I am sorry to inform you that you are wrong.
Matthew 18:22-23; Peter didn’t have a clue about the plan of redemption was about the cross and that is why Jesus rebuked him and said he didn’t savor the things of God.
He was also rebuking Satan for he was using Peter. This is a double reference.
John 6:50-58 show the disciples didn’t understand eating Christ flesh and drinking his blood meant his crucifixion.
They only knew he had the words to eternal life.

Click to expand...

I don't know what Bible you are reading; probably a Scofield. But that is totally anti-biblical conclusions.
There's a big difference between being ignorant and not fully getting it. What is more, there's a big difference between ignorance and not wanting to accept the inevitable. His death was central to his earthly ministry and to His kingdom assignment. Pretribber ignore this because it is one of 10,000 matters that refute the doctrine. Your continued avoidance on every subject reinforces that truth to those watching on. Your failure to quote Scripture confirms that. The reader will see the post after post remains unaddressed.

Dispensationalists wrongly argue that Christ’s overriding purpose for coming to this earth at His first advent was to set up a physical earthly kingdom in Israel. In that kingdom, they believe, the Lord would reign upon the earth on the literal physical throne of David in which He would rule over all His enemies. They say that when the Jews rejected His overtures, His plans were thwarted and He thus was forced to abandon His initial desire. They argue that His plans have now been postponed from the resurrection until ‘the rapture’, when He will finally realise and implement His Divine desire.

Jesus said, in Matthew 20:28, “the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

Jesus said in Luke 19:10, “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

Jesus said in Luke 9:56, “For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.”

Jesus said, in Luke 9:22, “The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.”

Jesus succinctly said in Luke 24:46, “Thus it is written, (and thus it behoved) Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day.”

Christ’s death was not an accident, or a kind of ‘plan b’, no, but the foreordained eternal plan of God for lost-sinners. Christ would thus perfectly fulfil that with which God had fully ordained! Jesus said, prior to Calvary, in Luke 22:22, “truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined.”

Contrary to some interpreters, God eternal plan could not be thwarted. Christ came to save a particular people by the shedding of His blood – and this He did. He was foreordained for such an end; without which, no man – Jew or Gentile could have been saved. John says of this matter, in chapter 1 verses 11-13, “He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

Jesus said, in Matthew 12:40, “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”

Matthew records, in 16:21-23, “From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

Jesus said in John 3:14-15, “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up. That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

Christ, Himself, knew that He would be rejected by the broad base of the Jewish people, such was in the prevailing plan of God. However, He also ordained that the Gospel would be opened to all nations through His life, death and resurrection. In fact He prophesied such in John 9:39, saying, “For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.”

Jesus said, in John 10:15-18, “I lay down my life for the sheep…No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”

Jesus said, in John 12:31-33, “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die.”

Israel wilful rejection of God’s only provision for sin and uncleanness was God’s means for reaching the nations. Jesus intimated such, whilst speaking to the Jews, in Matthew 21:42-44, asking, “Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.”

The Bible tells us that Christ came into the world to save sinners. 1 Timothy 1:15 declares, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.”

The writer of the book of Acts 2:23 stated, “Him (Christ), being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”

Thirdly, if Christ had not come into this world and took the sinners place by shedding His blood no one within the old or the new economy could have realised salvation. Hebrews 9:22 says, “without shedding of blood is no remission.”

Acts 13:28-30 says, “And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.”

At the time of Christ’s first Advent, the nation of Israel had been in rebellion against God for many hundreds of years. When the Redeemer came they were in such blindness that the nation as a whole largely rejected Him and His message. Their rebellion was such that they took it upon themselves to crucify the Son of glory – their only hope of salvation. This was in no way a shock to God and in no way precipitated a change in the Divine plan. Christ was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8). He was predestined to come into this world as a substitutionary sacrifice – without which no man would be saved.

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 says, “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.”

1 Peter 1:18-20 confirms this Divine plan and purpose, “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.”

God in His Sovereignty sent a provision to this sin-cursed world in the form of His dear Son – the Lord Jesus Christ. For all that would truly believe – of all kindred’s, peoples and nations.

sovereigngrace said:

It symbolically depicts the peace that Christ has introduced through the new covenant and which will be literally realized in the new heavens and new earth. The one thing it does not speak of is some supposed sin-cursed, goat-infested, death-blighted future millennial kingdom.

Click to expand...

So you are not only denying Pre-trib, you don't even believe there will be a 1000 year reign of Jesus on Earth from Jerusalem.

Guojing said:

So you are not only denying Pre-trib, you don't even believe there will be a 1000 year reign of Jesus on Earth from Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

Correct. I believe in a climatic coming of the Lord Jesus. I believe Premil is totally non-corroborated. That is why I abandoned it.

sovereigngrace said:

I don't know what Bible you are reading; probably a Scofield. But that is totally anti-biblical conclusions.
There's a big difference between being ignorant and not fully getting it. What is more, there's a big difference between ignorance and not wanting to accept the inevitable. His death was central to his earthly ministry and to His kingdom assignment. Pretribber ignore this because it is one of 10,000 matters that refute the doctrine. Your continued avoidance on every subject reinforces that truth to those watching on. Your failure to quote Scripture confirms that. The reader will see the post after post remains unaddressed.

Dispensationalists wrongly argue that Christ’s overriding purpose for coming to this earth at His first advent was to set up a physical earthly kingdom in Israel. In that kingdom, they believe, the Lord would reign upon the earth on the literal physical throne of David in which He would rule over all His enemies. They say that when the Jews rejected His overtures, His plans were thwarted and He thus was forced to abandon His initial desire. They argue that His plans have now been postponed from the resurrection until ‘the rapture’, when He will finally realise and implement His Divine desire.

Jesus said, in Matthew 20:28, “the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

Jesus said in Luke 19:10, “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

Jesus said in Luke 9:56, “For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.”

Jesus said, in Luke 9:22, “The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.”

Jesus succinctly said in Luke 24:46, “Thus it is written, (and thus it behoved) Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day.”

Christ’s death was not an accident, or a kind of ‘plan b’, no, but the foreordained eternal plan of God for lost-sinners. Christ would thus perfectly fulfil that with which God had fully ordained! Jesus said, prior to Calvary, in Luke 22:22, “truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined.”

Contrary to some interpreters, God eternal plan could not be thwarted. Christ came to save a particular people by the shedding of His blood – and this He did. He was foreordained for such an end; without which, no man – Jew or Gentile could have been saved. John says of this matter, in chapter 1 verses 11-13, “He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

Jesus said, in Matthew 12:40, “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”

Matthew records, in 16:21-23, “From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

Jesus said in John 3:14-15, “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up. That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”

Christ, Himself, knew that He would be rejected by the broad base of the Jewish people, such was in the prevailing plan of God. However, He also ordained that the Gospel would be opened to all nations through His life, death and resurrection. In fact He prophesied such in John 9:39, saying, “For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.”

Jesus said, in John 10:15-18, “I lay down my life for the sheep…No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”

Jesus said, in John 12:31-33, “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die.”

Israel wilful rejection of God’s only provision for sin and uncleanness was God’s means for reaching the nations. Jesus intimated such, whilst speaking to the Jews, in Matthew 21:42-44, asking, “Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.”

The Bible tells us that Christ came into the world to save sinners. 1 Timothy 1:15 declares, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.”

The writer of the book of Acts 2:23 stated, “Him (Christ), being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”

Thirdly, if Christ had not come into this world and took the sinners place by shedding His blood no one within the old or the new economy could have realised salvation. Hebrews 9:22 says, “without shedding of blood is no remission.”

Acts 13:28-30 says, “And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.”

At the time of Christ’s first Advent, the nation of Israel had been in rebellion against God for many hundreds of years. When the Redeemer came they were in such blindness that the nation as a whole largely rejected Him and His message. Their rebellion was such that they took it upon themselves to crucify the Son of glory – their only hope of salvation. This was in no way a shock to God and in no way precipitated a change in the Divine plan. Christ was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8). He was predestined to come into this world as a substitutionary sacrifice – without which no man would be saved.

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 says, “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.”

1 Peter 1:18-20 confirms this Divine plan and purpose, “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.”

God in His Sovereignty sent a provision to this sin-cursed world in the form of His dear Son – the Lord Jesus Christ. For all that would truly believe – of all kindred’s, peoples and nations.

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace,

1. When you don’t rightly divide the word it doesn’t matter how much scripture you quote.
You can read and study the Bible hundreds of times with the wrong hermeneutics and come up with the wrong answer all the time.
That’s pretty much what your posts demonstrate.
I have given you plenty of scripture but you won’t specifically comment on them.

2. I gave you 2 sets of scripture that proved specifically that Jesus didn’t teach the New Covenant.
You didn’t have the decency to mention or address those in Matthew 18 and John 6 at all. And you accuse me of skating or avoiding. You are the one doing those things. Credibility on your part is shown to be out the window.

3. I have never been a student of Scofield.

4. Everything you accuse me of is what you are doing and you are not fooling me.

5. You speak in presuppositions and generalizations when you say that his death is central to his earthly ministry and the kingdom.
It doesn’t mean it is not true but it was prophetic.
The Cross was the main focus since Adam’s day Genesis 3:15.
However, the Jew in Jesus day was not taught to believe directly in Christ death, burial and resurrection such as Romans 10:9-10.
They had to believe Jesus was the Messiah John 1:31. This is why he had to be manifested to Israel.
They had to repent Matthew 4:17 so he would forgive their sins Matthew 6:9-15 so they would gain entrance into the KoH.
Matthew 6:33;Luke 17:20-21. They had to seek the KOG Spiritual to receive the physical KoH becomes the KOG spiritual comes without observation because the KOG spiritual is within you.
They were never told told to seek the KOH.

6. I am going to stop here.
I challenge you to tell me what the Sermon on the Mount meant to a Jew. Does it hold the same meaning as Gentiles in the church teach with moral and ethical teaching alone?
I need to know if you understand the Hebraic perspective. If you do not understand that then it is why you are confused and can’t rightly the word. Give it a try. Jerry Kelso

jerry kelso said:

sovereigngrace,

1. When you don’t rightly divide the word it doesn’t matter how much scripture you quote.
You can read and study the Bible hundreds of times with the wrong hermeneutics and come up with the wrong answer all the time.
That’s pretty much what your posts demonstrate.
I have given you plenty of scripture but you won’t specifically comment on them.

2. I gave you 2 sets of scripture that proved specifically that Jesus didn’t teach the New Covenant.
You didn’t have the decency to mention or address those in Matthew 18 and John 6 at all. And you accuse me of skating or avoiding. You are the one doing those things. Credibility on your part is shown to be out the window.

3. I have never been a student of Scofield.

4. Everything you accuse me of is what you are doing and you are not fooling me.

5. You speak in presuppositions and generalizations when you say that his death is central to his earthly ministry and the kingdom.
It doesn’t mean it is not true but it was prophetic.
The Cross was the main focus since Adam’s day Genesis 3:15.
However, the Jew in Jesus day was not taught to believe directly in Christ death, burial and resurrection such as Romans 10:9-10.
They had to believe Jesus was the Messiah John 1:31. This is why he had to be manifested to Israel.
They had to repent Matthew 4:17 so he would forgive their sins Matthew 6:9-15 so they would gain entrance into the KoH.
Matthew 6:33;Luke 17:20-21. They had to seek the KOG Spiritual to receive the physical KoH becomes the KOG spiritual comes without observation because the KOG spiritual is within you.
They were never told told to seek the KOH.

6. I am going to stop here.
I challenge you to tell me what the Sermon on the Mount meant to a Jew. Does it hold the same meaning as Gentiles in the church teach with moral and ethical teaching alone?
I need to know if you understand the Hebraic perspective. If you do not understand that then it is why you are confused and can’t rightly the word. Give it a try. Jerry Kelso

Click to expand...

I have been engaging in debates online since 2000 but you have to be the most evasive and frustrating poster I have interacted with. You duck and dive around every single issue. When clear Scripture is presented that forbids Pretrib, you duck and dive to avoid it and immediately change subjects. You fail to present any actually Scripture since I started. It is pointless engaging with you because you do not respond to the responses. You just articulate what you have been taught. You do not seem to know how to exegete a text or do you have any hermeneutical structure. I spent a lot of time addressing your posts, points and questions, yet you failed to return the favor.

I asked you a very elementary question 100 times: Can you show us Scripture that clearly describes (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a further Coming of Christ? You repeatedly sidestepped it!

You have not been able to present any answer to this theory. Not Daniel 9, 1 Thessalonians 4 or Revelation. Dispensationalist Pretrib writers argue that Revelation 2-3 is seven church ages, Revelation 4:1 is the secret rapture, and that Revelation 6-19 is a seven-year Great Tribulation period. They take a strict chronological approach to Revelation and generally take a literal interpretation of the symbols contained within this allegorical book. They also put a great emphasis upon the fact that the word ekklesia or “Church” is not found anywhere between Revelation 6 and 19. This, they say, proves the Church has been totally removed from the earth in a secret Coming. They further argue that this seven-year tribulation period following Christ’s appearing is God’s particular dealings with natural Israel, a period in which the nation will accept Christ as Messiah.

However, this concept that the Church must be absent from the earth between Revelation 4–19 because of the fact that the word ekklesia is not mentioned in those chapters is totally illogical, and ignores the many clear and explicit varying terms and descriptions that God employs to describe His beloved people the Church in these passages. The Holy Spirit uses many names to describe God’s elect between Revelation 4 and 19, as He does elsewhere in Scripture; the word ecclesia or “Church” being just one of many.

· You have zero proof for a Pretrib rapture in Revelation 4:1. There is no mention of the Church there. It is rather a record of John getting caught up in the Spirit 2000 years ago.
· You have zero proof for a 7 years trib between Revelation 4-19. It actually adds up to a period of 19 years, 4 ½ days and 3 hours.
· You claim the Church is in heaven between Revelation 4-19 yet you admit there is no mention of the Church in any of those chapters.
· You claim the Church returns from heaven in Revelation 19 at your 3rd coming yet there is no mention of the Church by name in that chapters.

The Bible student will know: the same sword Goliath intended to take the head off David was the same sword that ended up removing his own head. Similarly, the same gallows that Haman created to hang Mordecai on where the same gallows Haman ended up hanging from. Likewise, when put to the test, the Pretrib sword that was designed to destroy Posttrib actually ends up destroying Pretrib. The Pretrib gallows that were intended to hang Posttrib end up hanging Pretrib.

I will engage again when you start to address the issues!!!

The only reason I continued with the discussion was to show the observer the impotence of Pretrib. You made the Postrib case for me by your avoidance, for that I do thank you. For that it was worthwhile.

sovereigngrace said:

I have been engaging in debates online since 2000 but you have to be the most evasive and frustrating poster I have interacted with. You duck and dive around every single issue. When clear Scripture is presented that forbids Pretrib, you duck and dive to avoid it and immediately change subjects. You fail to present any actually Scripture since I started. It is pointless engaging with you because you do not respond to the responses. You just articulate what you have been taught. You do not seem to know how to exegete a text or do you have any hermeneutical structure. I spent a lot of time addressing your posts, points and questions, yet you failed to return the favor.

I asked you a very elementary question 100 times: Can you show us Scripture that clearly describes (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a further Coming of Christ? You repeatedly sidestepped it!

You have not been able to present any answer to this theory. Not Daniel 9, 1 Thessalonians 4 or Revelation. Dispensationalist Pretrib writers argue that Revelation 2-3 is seven church ages, Revelation 4:1 is the secret rapture, and that Revelation 6-19 is a seven-year Great Tribulation period. They take a strict chronological approach to Revelation and generally take a literal interpretation of the symbols contained within this allegorical book. They also put a great emphasis upon the fact that the word ekklesia or “Church” is not found anywhere between Revelation 6 and 19. This, they say, proves the Church has been totally removed from the earth in a secret Coming. They further argue that this seven-year tribulation period following Christ’s appearing is God’s particular dealings with natural Israel, a period in which the nation will accept Christ as Messiah.

However, this concept that the Church must be absent from the earth between Revelation 4–19 because of the fact that the word ekklesia is not mentioned in those chapters is totally illogical, and ignores the many clear and explicit varying terms and descriptions that God employs to describe His beloved people the Church in these passages. The Holy Spirit uses many names to describe God’s elect between Revelation 4 and 19, as He does elsewhere in Scripture; the word ecclesia or “Church” being just one of many.

· You have zero proof for a Pretrib rapture in Revelation 4:1. There is no mention of the Church there. It is rather a record of John getting caught up in the Spirit 2000 years ago.
· You have zero proof for a 7 years trib between Revelation 4-19. It actually adds up to a period of 19 years, 4 ½ days and 3 hours.
· You claim the Church is in heaven between Revelation 4-19 yet you admit there is no mention of the Church in any of those chapters.
· You claim the Church returns from heaven in Revelation 19 at your 3rd coming yet there is no mention of the Church by name in that chapters.

The Bible student will know: the same sword Goliath intended to take the head off David was the same sword that ended up removing his own head. Similarly, the same gallows that Haman created to hang Mordecai on where the same gallows Haman ended up hanging from. Likewise, when put to the test, the Pretrib sword that was designed to destroy Posttrib actually ends up destroying Pretrib. The Pretrib gallows that were intended to hang Posttrib end up hanging Pretrib.

I will engage again when you start to address the issues!!!

The only reason I continued with the discussion was to show the observer the impotence of Pretrib. You made the Postrib for me by your avoidance.

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace,

1. Sorry but I have posted long enough and most people like you are not honest but at least they knew I answered them specifically and when they couldn’t answer they just went away and started another post with their same belief. But at least they were not as dishonest in their posts as you.

2. You could not answer to the post that I rebutted on Daniel 9.
The same with Israel not receiving the New Covenant. You didn’t distinguish the difference between the New Covenant given at Calvary and not given to the nation of Israel concerning the KoH program which ended in Jesus ministry before the cross.
You didn’t have the decency to even mention Matthew 16 and John 6 either one or even try to specifically address them lot alone to rebut and debunk them.
I asked you to give the Hebraic perspective on the Sermon on the Mount and you didn’t do that because you know you can’t.
So spare me the how much scripture you give because you don’t understand proper context and reconciling the scriptures together.
To be honest I don’t think you want to be apologetic to the scriptures. You seem to just want to be like a Bible thumper.

3. So I am sorry that you choose to do this.
I am a preacher’s son and I have traveled all over North America and been in most of the mainstream churches and more notable ones and then some and you treat me like I don’t know anything about the Bible.
I have stated where we agree and you still act like I am saying something different.
I don’t believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water but you want no common ground and be one sided.
The biggest problem you have is being honest in your posts about me ducking and diving and never answering you etc. It is not true and that is why your post are not credible and why you shouldn’t post.
But I cannot stop you. Your motive is purely to trounce on Dispensationalism as not being valid with one iota of truth which is totally ridiculous.
I don’t agree with Calvinism and Covenant theology overall but that doesn’t mean they have no truth at all.
I believe you have some truth and you know how to quote scripture but you hat doesn’t mean you understand proper context. 1 Corinthians 15:31 proved that. You have been silent on that because you can’t prove that.
I don’t mind conversing with those of opposing views but dishonesty and not being fair is not right. Jerry Kelso

sovereigngrace said:

I have been engaging in debates online since 2000 but you have to be the most evasive and frustrating poster I have interacted with. You duck and dive around every single issue. When clear Scripture is presented that forbids Pretrib, you duck and dive to avoid it and immediately change subjects. You fail to present any actually Scripture since I started. It is pointless engaging with you because you do not respond to the responses. You just articulate what you have been taught. You do not seem to know how to exegete a text or do you have any hermeneutical structure. I spent a lot of time addressing your posts, points and questions, yet you failed to return the favor.

I asked you a very elementary question 100 times: Can you show us Scripture that clearly describes (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a further Coming of Christ? You repeatedly sidestepped it!

You have not been able to present any answer to this theory. Not Daniel 9, 1 Thessalonians 4 or Revelation. Dispensationalist Pretrib writers argue that Revelation 2-3 is seven church ages, Revelation 4:1 is the secret rapture, and that Revelation 6-19 is a seven-year Great Tribulation period. They take a strict chronological approach to Revelation and generally take a literal interpretation of the symbols contained within this allegorical book. They also put a great emphasis upon the fact that the word ekklesia or “Church” is not found anywhere between Revelation 6 and 19. This, they say, proves the Church has been totally removed from the earth in a secret Coming. They further argue that this seven-year tribulation period following Christ’s appearing is God’s particular dealings with natural Israel, a period in which the nation will accept Christ as Messiah.

However, this concept that the Church must be absent from the earth between Revelation 4–19 because of the fact that the word ekklesia is not mentioned in those chapters is totally illogical, and ignores the many clear and explicit varying terms and descriptions that God employs to describe His beloved people the Church in these passages. The Holy Spirit uses many names to describe God’s elect between Revelation 4 and 19, as He does elsewhere in Scripture; the word ecclesia or “Church” being just one of many.

· You have zero proof for a Pretrib rapture in Revelation 4:1. There is no mention of the Church there. It is rather a record of John getting caught up in the Spirit 2000 years ago.
· You have zero proof for a 7 years trib between Revelation 4-19. It actually adds up to a period of 19 years, 4 ½ days and 3 hours.
· You claim the Church is in heaven between Revelation 4-19 yet you admit there is no mention of the Church in any of those chapters.
· You claim the Church returns from heaven in Revelation 19 at your 3rd coming yet there is no mention of the Church by name in that chapters.

The Bible student will know: the same sword Goliath intended to take the head off David was the same sword that ended up removing his own head. Similarly, the same gallows that Haman created to hang Mordecai on where the same gallows Haman ended up hanging from. Likewise, when put to the test, the Pretrib sword that was designed to destroy Posttrib actually ends up destroying Pretrib. The Pretrib gallows that were intended to hang Posttrib end up hanging Pretrib.

I will engage again when you start to address the issues!!!

The only reason I continued with the discussion was to show the observer the impotence of Pretrib. You made the Postrib case for me by your avoidance, for that I do thank you. For that it was worthwhile.

Click to expand...

I have not followed your discussions with Jerry Kelso, and am not going to take the time to go back and read the well over 700 posts in this thread. But your last post is full of errors.

Your greatest error is that neither dispensationalism, nor even preillennism in general, is based on the book of Revelation. Indeed the Apocalypse is a part of why we believe as we do, but it is a relatively small part of that.

While it is indeed correct that only the first eight verses of Revelation 20 explicitly state that the coming kingdom on this earth will last a thousand years, this future physical kingdom on this earth is a major theme of the vast bulk of the prophetic scriptures. Isaiah and Ezekiel are particularly full of it. Indeed this future kingdom and the wars that will precede its establishment, are the subject treated in more of the Bible than any other subject.

Both a future return of absolutely all of the ancient nation of Israel to her ancient homeland and their eventual restoration to a true and living faith in their God are clearly and plainly taught in explicit words. The only way to avoid this truth is to deny that any of these scriptures actually means what it so very explicitly says.

The fact that there is no single passage of scripture that lays out all these events in sequence is trivial. All of them are indeed taught, and clearly taught. And all of this has always been understood by those that deeply studied the scriptures and simply accepted them at face value.

And although you may indeed have met dispensationalists who mistakenly say that Christ's major purpose in His first coming was to set a physical kingdom on this earth, I am certain that you cannot demonstrate even one person who ever taught this and remained respected as a teacher among dispensationalists in general. For such a notion contradicts the central essence of dispensationalism, to say nothing of even basic Christianity.

Biblewriter said:

I have not followed your discussions with Jerry Kelso, and am not going to take the time to go back and read the well over 700 posts in this thread. But your last post is full of errors.

Your greatest error is that neither dispensationalism, nor even preillennism in general, is based on the book of Revelation. Indeed the Apocalypse is a part of why we believe as we do, but it is a relatively small part of that.

While it is indeed correct that only the first eight verses of Revelation 20 explicitly state that the coming kingdom on this earth will last a thousand years, this future physical kingdom on this earth is a major theme of the vast bulk of the prophetic scriptures. Isaiah and Ezekiel are particularly full of it. Indeed this future kingdom and the wars that will precede its establishment, are the subject treated in more of the Bible than any other subject.

Both a future return of absolutely all of the ancient nation of Israel to her ancient homeland and their eventual restoration to a true and living faith in their God are clearly and plainly taught in explicit words. The only way to avoid this truth is to deny that any of these scriptures actually means what it so very explicitly says.

The fact that there is no single passage of scripture that lays out all these events in sequence is trivial. All of them are indeed taught, and clearly taught. And all of this has always been understood by those that deeply studied the scriptures and simply accepted them at face value.

And although you may indeed have met dispensationalists who mistakenly say that Christ's major purpose in His first coming was to set a physical kingdom on this earth, I am certain that you cannot demonstrate even one person who ever taught this and remained respected as a teacher among dispensationalists in general. For such a notion contradicts the central essence of dispensationalism, to say nothing of even basic Christianity.

Click to expand...

OK, let's start with a very important, yet basic question, that has been side-stepped on this thread up until now: Can you show us Scripture that clearly describes (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a further Coming of Christ?

sovereigngrace said:

OK, let's start with a very important, yet basic question, that has been side-stepped on this thread up until now: Can you show us Scripture that clearly describes (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a further Coming of Christ?

Click to expand...

The scriptures clearly teach all of these. And they teach them in succession. Bupt no scriptire explicitly states this succession.

Also, I would note that, although the scriptures clearly teach a coming seven year period, which period people have come to call "the tribulation," and it will clearly come after the rapture, no scripture either says or even implies that this period will begin immediately after the rapture. Instead, the scriptures describe a chain of events between the rapture and the beginning of the seven years, and the chain of events they describe could take a matter of years to complete, although they also could happen rather quickly, being finished in a few months or so.

In addition, I will say that, although anyone who denies that there will be a rapture is denying explicitly stated scripture, the timing of this event, relative to the timing of other end time events, is never explicitly stated. All positions on the timing of the rapture are based on interpretations of various scriptures. I have zero doubt that pre-trib is the correct interpretation. But I know that, as it is only an interpretation, and all humans make mistakes, this interpretation could be incorrect.

Many disparage this interpretation by claiming that it was never invented until the early 1800s, but this is incorrect. It was indeed, taught, and clearly taught, in the very oldest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of any significant length) that has survived to the present day. And a future fulfillment of the seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks, was also taught in this .document, as well as in the very oldest Christian commentary on scripture that has survived to the present day.

The writers of both of these works were clearly pre-millennial, as well as the writer of the very oldest known Christian commentary that was specifically about Bible prophecy, although the medieval monks did not see that five volume work as fit to preserve. So all we know about it is what other ancient writers said about it.

Biblewriter said:

The scriptures clearly teach all of these. And they teach them in succession. Bupt no scriptire explicitly states this succession.

Also, I would note that, although the scriptures clearly teach a coming seven year period, which period people have come to call "the tribulation," and it will clearly come after the rapture, no scripture either says or even implies that this period will begin immediately after the rapture. Instead, the scriptures describe a chain of events between the rapture and the beginning of the seven years, and the chain of events they describe could take a matter of years to complete, although they also could happen rather quickly, being finished in a few months or so.

In addition, I will say that, although anyone who denies that there will be a rapture is denying explicitly stated scripture, the timing of this event, relative to the timing of other end time events, is never explicitly stated. All positions on the timing of the rapture are based on interpretations of various scriptures. I have zero doubt that pre-trib is the correct interpretation. But I know that, as it is only an interpretation, and all humans make mistakes, this interpretation could be incorrect.

Many disparage this interpretation by claiming that it was never invented until the early 1800s, but this is incorrect. It was indeed, taught, and clearly taught, in the very oldest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of any significant length) that has survived to the present day. And a future fulfillment of the seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks, was also taught in this .document, as well as in the very oldest Christian commentary on scripture that has survived to the present day.

The writers of both of these works were clearly pre-millennial, as well as the writer of the very oldest known Christian commentary that was specifically about Bible prophecy, although the medieval monks did not see that five volume work as fit to preserve. So all we know about it is what other ancient writers said about it.

Click to expand...

Ok, so we agree: no Scripture describes (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a further Coming of Christ. So where do you get your teaching? You provided no Scripture to support the Pretrib position.

There was no "Christian" writer that taught this '2-future-comings' theory up until Emmanuel Lacunza (or Manuel de Lacunza y Diaz), a Chilean theologian of Spanish descent (born in Santiago, Chile, July 19, 1731, and died at Imola, Italy, June 17, 1801). Lacunza wrote ‘La venida del Mesias en Gloria y Majestad, Observaciones,’ which is ‘The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty.’ Lacunza wrote the book under the assumed name of Rabbi Ben-Ezra as a "converted Jew". Lacunza died in June 1801, before the book was ever published in book form. Rev. Edward Irving, translated this Jesuit book of Lacunza from the Spanish in 1826, and it was published in English by L.B. Seely and Son, Fleet Street, London, in 1827. This is the origin of Pretrib. Edward Irving and J.N. Darby then formulated the Pretrib theory.

The ancient teacher that Pretribbers have sometimes tried to claim in this past 10 years is Pseudo-Ephraem. Not only was he not Pretrib, he was also not a Premil. Not one of the Syrian early church fathers were Premillennial. Pretribbers swallow what their teachers tell them without even doing the research.

Without reading the context of one quote they will never understand Pseudo-Ephraem. He makes a statement about the tribulation of God being poured out on the wicked. For the Pretribber they automatically think '7-years trib after a rapture of the Church'. But such a concept was unknown until Pretrib around 1826-1830. That statements simply refers to the wrath of God destroying all the wicked when Jesus comes. He was a classic Syrian Amil.

sovereigngrace said:

Ok, so we agree: no Scripture describes (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a further Coming of Christ. So where do you get your teaching? You provided no Scripture to support the Pretrib position.

There was no "Christian" writer that taught this '2-future-comings' theory up until Emmanuel Lacunza (or Manuel de Lacunza y Diaz), a Chilean theologian of Spanish descent (born in Santiago, Chile, July 19, 1731, and died at Imola, Italy, June 17, 1801). Lacunza wrote ‘La venida del Mesias en Gloria y Majestad, Observaciones,’ which is ‘The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty.’ Lacunza wrote the book under the assumed name of Rabbi Ben-Ezra as a "converted Jew". Lacunza died in June 1801, before the book was ever published in book form. Rev. Edward Irving, translated this Jesuit book of Lacunza from the Spanish in 1826, and it was published in English by L.B. Seely and Son, Fleet Street, London, in 1827. This is the origin of Pretrib. Edward Irving and J.N. Darby then formulated the Pretrib theory.

The ancient teacher that Pretribbers have sometimes tried to claim in this past 10 years is Pseudo-Ephraem. Not only was he not Pretrib, he was also not a Premil. Not one of the Syrian early church fathers were Premillennial. Pretribber swallow what their teachers tell them without even doing the research.

Without reading the context of one quote they will never understand Pseudo-Ephraem. He makes a statement about the tribulation of God being poured out on the wicked. For the Pretribber they automatically think '7-years trib after a rapture of the Church'. But such a concept was unknown until Pretrib around 1826-1830. That statements simply refers to the wrath of God destroying all the wicked when Jesus comes. He was a classic Syrian Amil.

Click to expand...

Contrary to your implication, I have actually devoted many, not just years, but decades, to actually studying what the ancients wrote. I did not just study ABOUT what the ancients thought, but actually studied their writings for myself.

I thoroughly documented every claim I made here about ancient doctrine in my book, "Ancient Dispensationbal Truth," which is easily available from Amazon.com . In that book I thoroughly disproved your claim that "There was no 'Christian' writer that taught this '2-future-comings' theory up until Emmanuel Lacunza." A second book that thoroughly disproves this claim is "Dispensationalism Before Darby," by William C. Watson. This book is also available from Amazon.com . My book focuses mainly on Christian documents dating from the second through the fifth centuries, including at least three from that period that taught "2-future-comings." And Watson's book documents literally dozens of Christian writers who taught such a "2-future-comings" doctrine during the 1600s and 1700s.

I will also state unequivicaly that I have personally studied the entirety of the "Pseudo-Ephraem" pre-trib document, and have written HARD PROOF that it indeed teaches a "2-future-comings" doctrine, as you call it. Your error appears to be rooted in ignorance of the fact that there are two different documents whose authors are called "Pseudo-Ephraem" by modern scholars. But this label means nothing except that it is alleged to have been written by Ephraem, but they do not feel that the author could have been the famous Ephraem. So it is understandable that this label may have been pasted on the unknown author of more than one document.

One commentary on end time prophecy that is attributed to "Pseudo-Ephgraem" indeed teaches more or less what you have outlined here. But that document is so radically different from the "Pseudo-Ephraem" document that dispensationalists point to, that it is basically impossible that they even could have been written by the same person.

Biblewriter said:

Contrary to your implication, I have actually devoted many, not just years, but decades, to actually studying what the ancients wrote. I did not just study ABOUT what the ancients thought, but actually studied their writings for myself.

I thoroughly documented every claim I made here about ancient doctrine in my book, "Ancient Dispensationbal Truth," which is easily available from Amazon.com . In that book I thoroughly disproved your claim that "There was no 'Christian' writer that taught this '2-future-comings' theory up until Emmanuel Lacunza." A second book that thoroughly disproves this claim is "Dispensationalism Before Darby," by William C. Watson. This book is also available from Amazon.com . My book focuses mainly on Christian documents dating from the second through the fifth centuries, including at least three from that period that taught "2-future-comings." And Watson's book documents literally dozens of Christian writers who taught such a "2-future-comings" doctrine during the 1600s and 1700s.

I will also state unequivicaly that I have personally studied the entirety of the "Pseudo-Ephraem" document, and have written HARD PROOF that your claim about it is incorrect.

Click to expand...

I too have studied the ECFs in depth. I am in the process of writings 2 books on them. If you feel so confident: present your evidence!!! The first principle of evidence is: he who alleges must prove. So, go for it!

sovereigngrace said:

I too have studied the ECFs in depth. I am in the process of writings 2 books on them. If you feel so confident: present your evidence!!! The first principle of evidence is: he who alleges must prove. So, go for it!

Click to expand...

sovereigngrace,

1. The problem you have is that you look to the gentile perspective instead of the Hebraic perspective of the scripture concerning the KoH and the KoG in Jesus ministry. This is the major crux of understanding the earthly calling of Israel which is separate from the heavenly calling of the church.
Just like the Sermon on the Mount you can’t tell me the proper Hebraic perspective on it.
You seem to think you have the corner on everything else, so let’s hear it. Don’t be afraid. Jerry Kelso

sovereigngrace said:

I too have studied the ECFs in depth. I am in the process of writings 2 books on them. If you feel so confident: present your evidence!!! The first principle of evidence is: he who alleges must prove. So, go for it!

Click to expand...

As I said, I have already done so in my Book, "Ancient Dispensational Truth," which I told you how to obtain. And William Watson has also already done this in his book, which I also told you how to obtain.

I have also already posted extensive proof of what I have said here in the "Dispensationalism" sub-forum of this website. As you have already demonstrated that you havce no intention of yielding on this, I see zero point in repeating all of it here.

Biblewriter said:

As I said, I have already done so in my Book, "Ancient Dispensational Truth," which I told you how to obtain. And William Watson has also already done this in his book, which I also told you how to obtain.

I have also already posted extensive proof of what I have said here in the "Dispensationalism" sub-forum of this website. As you have already demonstrated that you havce no intention of yielding on this, I see zero point in repeating all of it here.

Click to expand...

You can advertise your book all you want, but I am not going to buy it. So far you have not showed me one Scripture or one ancient quote to support your thesis. Until you do, I can only assume you have nothing.

Please put your evidence on the table. Where is your Scripture? Show us Scripture that teaches (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a further Coming of Christ? I have been asking Pretribbers for 26 years and they cannot provide. The reason is: it is not there. It is a man-made doctrine. It is extra-biblical. If it was there someone would give clear Scripture.

This is why many of us have abandoned the theory, and many more are, and will.