Dispensationalism

[justinangel]

You are talking about a concept radically different from the one I am talking about. You are discussing what came to be accepted as standard doctrine of the church, while I am talking about doctrine that was unquestionably taught.

Neither a pre nor mid-tribulational rapture was either held as a Church doctrine or as a personal theological opinion by the ECFs. Against Heresies V.XXX.lll refers back to V.XXlX.l: "in the end the Church will be suddenly caught up from this", and V XXVl.l :" after that (when they put the Church to flight) they shall be destroyed by the coming of the Lord.". The chapters do not lay out a sequence of events but rather move forward and backward in time. In XXlX.1, Irenaeus has the caught up Christians presently looking at the events that had taken place in retrospect as the greatest persecution the Church has ever faced and would have to face if this one weren't the final one; XXXV.1 indicates Irenaeus believed in a post-tribulational ressurection of the just (the faithful belonging to the Church. This strict linear and sequential approach of yours totally distorts the text. Hence, the first resurrection occurs when Christ returns on the clouds of heaven in the Father's glory with his angels, as Jesus puts it, to subdue the anti-Christ and end the persecution against the Church. There is no invisible coming of Christ before then to snatch up the faithful, which would make his final coming on the last day a third time. Other ECFs shared Irenaeus' belief in a post-tribulation "rapture" (the first resurrection).

"Two advents of Christ have been announced: the one in which He is set forth as suffering, inglorious, suffering, and crucified; but the other, in which He will come from heaven in glory, when the man of apostasy...shall venture to do unlawful deeds against us the Christians.
St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 110

"When the times are fulfilled, and the ten horns spring from the beast in the last times, then anti-Christ will appear among them. When he makes war against the saints, and persecutes them, we may expect the manifestation of the Lord from heaven."
St. Hippolytus, On Daniel 2,7

"For we shall, according to the apostle [Paul], be caught up into the clouds to meet the Lord and so shall be ever with the Lord."
Tertullian, Against Marcion [the gnostic] 3:25

Irenaeus clearly taught a mid trib rapture, as we use the term today. And the unknown writer that is called pseudo-Ephrem unquestionably taught a pre-tribulation rapture in a document that was unquestionably widely circulated more than a thousand years before Darby was born. The quotations I have posted have proved both of these beyond a possibility of rational debate.

It doesn't appear so.

You claim that the medieval church never took a position that included errors in doctrine concerning faith and morals. If this were true, the reformation would have been a mistake and the blood of untold numbers of martyrs would have been wasted.

The Reformation was a mistake. Jesus himself said: "He who does not gather with me scatters" (Mt 12, 30).

Sola Scripture is a fundamental Christian doctrine

, and any denial of it is inappropriate in the dispensational sub-forum.

Not until the 16th century, embraced by those who separated themselves from the Church. I suppose you also believe Irenaeus taught this doctrine as well. If he did, he taught something unbiblical (1 Cor 11:2). By the way, you raised the subject of appealling to Scripture alone by suggesting that we should be. Let's end it here.


Pax Christu,
J.A.

 

[Biblewriter]

Let's end it here.


Pax Christu,
J.A.

This is good, because your doctrine is based on what "the church" says, and ours is based on what the Bible says. There can never be agreement. Also, I am firmly of the opinion that any unbiased person would agree that I proved that the doctrine of pre-tribulation rapture pre-dates Darby by at least a thousand years, but your prejudice will not allow you to admit it.

 

[justinangel]

This is good, because your doctrine is based on what "the church" says, and ours is based on what the Bible says. There can never be agreement. Also, I am firmly of the opinion that any unbiased person would agree that I proved that the doctrine of pre-tribulation rapture pre-dates Darby by at least a thousand years, but your prejudice will not allow you to admit it.

First of all, your private doctrine is totally unbiblical and inconsonant with the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. Allow me to show you some more scriptural passages that support Catholic teaching and the writings of the early Church Fathers I have cited above. By the way, the early Church was the Catholic Church.

1. The rapture isn't a secret and invisible event.


For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
1 Thessalonians 4, 16

2. The rapture occurs after the resurrection on the last day.

"For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day."
John 6, 40

3. The righteous and the unrighteous will be raised at the same time.

"Do not be amazed at this, because the hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come out, those who have done good deeds for the resurrection to life, but those who have done wicked deeds for the resurrection to condemnation."
John 5, 28-29

4. There are only two comings of Christ - not three, including a secret rapture in between.

Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment, so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him.
Hebrews 9, 27-28

Your private interpretation of the Apocalypse clearly contradicts Scripture. Needless to say, it's very arrogant of you to say that anyone who doesn't agree with it is biased. It appears in your religion every man is a magisterium unto himself. Feel free to continue engaging in wishful thinking.

Pax Christu,
J.A.

 

[Biblewriter]

First of all, your private doctrine is totally unbiblical and inconsonant with the Apostolic Tradition of the Church. Allow me to show you some more scriptural passages that support Catholic teaching and the writings of the early Church Fathers I have cited above. By the way, the early Church was the Catholic Church.

1. The rapture isn't a secret and invisible event.


For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
1 Thessalonians 4, 16

2. The rapture occurs after the resurrection on the last day.

"For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day."
John 6, 40

3. The righteous and the unrighteous will be raised at the same time.

"Do not be amazed at this, because the hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come out, those who have done good deeds for the resurrection to life, but those who have done wicked deeds for the resurrection to condemnation."
John 5, 28-29

4. There are only two comings of Christ - not three, including a secret rapture in between.

Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment, so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him.
Hebrews 9, 27-28

Your private interpretation of the Apocalypse clearly contradicts Scripture. Needless to say, it's very arrogant of you to say that anyone who doesn't agree with it is biased. It appears in your religion every man is a magisterium unto himself. Feel free to continue engaging in wishful thinking.

Pax Christu,
J.A.

I did not say that anyone who disagrees with me is biased. I implied that only bias could cause to deny that I had conclusively proved that the doctrine of the pre-tribulation was taught at least a thousand years before Darby was even born. I implied that a rejection of this had to be rooted in bias because I have proved beyond rational debate.

Your total and only defense was to claim that this man was a pseudo-author. But the fact that modern scholars call him pseudo-Ephraem does not make him a pseudo author. This name neglects the fact that the author could have been an individual other that Ephraem the Syrian who also happened to be named Ephraem. And regardless of your opinion of the writer of this paper, it was preserved in numerous ancient manuscripts in at least three different languages. This is conclusive proof that the doctrine presented in this document was widely circulated a thousand years before Darby was born.

But I went back even further than any document you can cite. Irenaeus wrote before any author or council you can cite, and I have demonstrated that he taught what is today called amid tribulation rapture.

 

[justinangel]

I did not say that anyone who disagrees with me is biased. I implied that only bias could cause to deny that I had conclusively proved that the doctrine of the pre-tribulation was taught at least a thousand years before Darby was even born. I implied that a rejection of this had to be rooted in bias because I have proved beyond rational debate.

Your total and only defense was to claim that this man was a pseudo-author. But the fact that modern scholars call him pseudo-Ephraem does not make him a pseudo author. This name neglects the fact that the author could have been an individual other that Ephraem the Syrian who also happened to be named Ephraem. And regardless of your opinion of the writer of this paper, it was preserved in numerous ancient manuscripts in at least three different languages. This is conclusive proof that the doctrine presented in this document was widely circulated a thousand years before Darby was born.

But I went back even further than any document you can cite. Irenaeus wrote before any author or council you can cite, and I have demonstrated that he taught what is today called amid tribulation rapture.

Are you serious? You haven't conclusivey proved anything, which is obvious by how Scripture clearly refutes your belief.

Meanwhile you have sorely misinterpreted Irenaeus. He believed that the Anti-Christ's three and a half year reign would end with the second (not third) advent of our Lord in glory in conjunction with the resurrection of the just and the destruction of the wicked. The millennial reign of the righteous follows the second coming of Christ. The general resurrection and judgment follow the descent of the new Jerusalem at the end of the millennium. There is no secret rapture occuring in his eschatological view. (Against Heresies V, 30:4; V, 35:1-2).

Pax Christu
J.A.

 

[justinangel]

]This is good, because your doctrine is based on what "the church" says, and ours is based on what the Bible says.[/B] There can never be agreement. Also, I am firmly of the opinion that any unbiased person would agree that I proved that the doctrine of pre-tribulation rapture pre-dates Darby by at least a thousand years, but your prejudice will not allow you to admit it.

"The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth." (1 Tim 3:15). Not the Bible - at least not your fallble and erroneous interpretation of it.

PAX