Pretrib Discussion

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The early Christian writers were remarkably (even though not totally) uniform in their opinions. But as the centuries passed, the church gave up a great amount of the truth she originally held. So there is very little uniformity between the early and late ancient writers.

Will you please address #62 and #74. Your silence is deafening!
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are ignoring the subject of the post you are answering. The subject is what Victorinus taught, not what is scripturally correct. And the fact that his pre-trib doctrine is somewhat different from what some teach today is irrelevant. Add to this the fact that you have clearly demonstrated that you have very little understanding of what modern pre-trib leaders teach.

What do mean some teach today??? You mean 'what Pretrib teaches today'! He was a Postrib Chiliast.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
The difference between Pretribs and Amils is context. Amils believe in context. Pretribbers don't. Pretribbers wrongly force a literal meaning on even the most blatant of symbolic books, because analyzing its thrust. However, the Bible student should always note the setting, genre and context of the truth/verse one is studying and establish what the Holy Spirit is actually saying in the overall passage. Context is crucial in biblical interpretation. We need to establish whether it is literal, symbolic or parabolic, and who, what and when it relates to. Is it speaking of the past, present or future? Is it principally speaking to the people receiving it or is it speaking prophetically of an approaching event? Is the sentence a command, a statement of fact or a question? We should always be sensitive to its setting, style of writing, and the respective subject under discussion.

Pretribbers literalise the most figurative book in the Bible. That is one of a thousand reasons why their eschatology does not fit.

The figure "a thousand" is used repeatedly in Scripture to mean a long period of time or a large amount. It is not strange that this intra-Advent period is symbolism by such a symbolic figure because no man knows how long it is. Remember it is a book full of this lingo. You could also apply that same reasoning to the “one hour” that the beast reigns with the “ten kings” in Revelation 17:12 is? i.e. is it sixty minutes? Of course not! It means a short period of time. The genre of Rev and the symbolism of the book lends itself to this type of rhetoric and figurative language.
There is a fixed rule that applies uniformly from one end of the Bible to the other, without a single exception. Aside from the obvious usage of figures of speech, every prophetic statement of a coming event which was explicitly stated in clear, plain, language, and for which we have an inspired statement that it had been fulfilled, was fulfilled literally, down to the tiniest detail. But every prophetic dream or vision for which we have an inspired statement of its meaning, had a meaning totally different from what the prophet saw.

Your claim that "pre-tribbers take the book of Revelation literally" and your claim that "pre-tribbers thing the book of Revelation sequentially," are both simply. and radically, incorrect. Any pre-tribber you may have heard say such things had very little understanding of scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Between AD 30-AD 130 there are 13 ECFs that taught on end-times, only 1 was a Chiliast - Papias.

Although I already responded to this post, I must add that this at least appears to be intentionally deceptive. Of course no one who wrote before the Revelation was given spoke of the thousand year reign, because that was the first place in the scriptures that specified that the reign would last 1000 years. But the deception does not end there. For all 12 of the writers before Papias that spoke of the end times only mentioned them in articles that were actually about other subjects. So not even one of these Christians actually “wrote about the end times.” All they did was mention them.

This is typical of the deceptive nature of almost everything this poster has posted in this entire discussion, both in this thread and the first one, alleging “facts” that are either incorrect or meaningless. And this appears to be done in a willful attempt to mislead the readers.

I must make this a direct appeal to you. How can you fail to see that the spirit that is driving you to make such serious and repeated deceptive statements, cannot be the Holy Spirit of God. He who is truth personified cannot lie, nor will He deceive.

You are consistently making arguments that are totally meaningless.

The one mentioned here is one of them, making a point of the fact that no Christian who wrote before the Revelation was given mentioned a doctrine that is only taught in the Revelation.

Another of these is claiming that because the entirety of a doctrine is never stated in a single passage, the scriptures do not teach it.

A third is that because a doctrine is not taught in a particular passage, the scriptures do not teach it.

A fourth is that because a particular word often used to present a concept is not used in a particular passage, that passage does not teach that concept using other words.

A fifth is that because a word is used in a certain way in one passage, it is used the same way in another passage.

A sixth is that because someone said something you agree with, he would not have also said something with which you do not agree.

All of these arguments sound good. But every one of them is totally meaningless.

Added to all this are numerous statements you have made that were factually incorrect. And when confronted with hard proof that your statements were factually incorrect, you simply denied the proof.

But the greatest problem is the arrogant spirit of many of your posts. This is not the way the Holy Spirit teaches.

So I am beseeching you to prayerfully consider what spirit it could be that is driving you to consistently do such things as all this.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is a fixed rule that applies uniformly from one end of the Bible to the other, without a single exception. Aside from the obvious usage of figures of speech, every prophetic statement of a coming event which was explicitly stated in clear, plain, language, and for which we have an inspired statement that it had been fulfilled, was fulfilled literally, down to the tiniest detail. But every prophetic dream or vision for which we have an inspired statement of its meaning, had a meaning totally different from what the prophet saw.

Instead of letting the New Testament pages interpret the Old Testament predictions, many Premillennialists actually explain away the fuller revelation with their hyper-literal opinion of Old Testament prophecy. This is a defective mode of biblical interpretation. What results from it is Dispensational theology. While it is important to consider a text in its normal, grammatical, historical, contextual and cultural setting, we must ultimately establish what and when it is referring to. We primarily need to discern the actual meaning the Holy Spirit intended rather than what man would assign to it through his bias theological approach. If the Bible student fails to recognize the era and fulfilment in view, and what the New Testament writers say about the same, then they will be all over the place in their understanding.

Their bias toward literalism prevents them from objectively analyzing the inspired pages. It stops them acknowledging the diminished vision most Old Testament prophets had. It also prevents them from seeing how the New Testament fuller revelation interpreted these. Of course, it is difficult to definitively outline the degree of revelation the various generations of Old Testament saints enjoyed before the incarnation; but, what we do know is that the fullness of that progressive illumination reached unfathomable heights with the arrival and teaching of Christ.

Daniel is a case in point in Daniel 12:8-9, who admitted, “I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” While he was a definite conduit for the Spirit of God he didn’t necessarily have a vivid understanding of what he was relaying. He admits that he spoke beyond his own understanding. This confirms the supernatural aspect of prophecy. It is only with the revelation we possess today through the first advent and the New Testament that we can effectively fit the jigsaw puzzle bits together correctly.

The early church father Irenaeus put it well: “For every prophecy, before its fulfilment, is to men [full of] enigmas and ambiguities. But when the time has arrived, and the prediction has come to pass, then the prophecies have a clear and certain exposition. And for this reason, indeed, when at this present time the law is read to the Jews, it is like a fable; for they do not possess the explanation of all things pertaining to the advent of the Son of God, which took place in human nature; but when it is read by the Christians, it is a treasure, hid indeed in a field, but brought to light by the cross of Christ, and explained, both enriching the understanding of men, and showing forth the wisdom of God and declaring His dispensations with regard to man, and forming the kingdom of Christ beforehand, and preaching by anticipation the inheritance of the holy Jerusalem, and proclaiming beforehand that the man who loves God shall arrive at such excellency as even to see God, and hear His word, and from the hearing of His discourse be glorified to such an extent, that others cannot behold the glory of his countenance, as was said by Daniel: Those who do understand, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and many of the righteous as the stars for ever and ever. (Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 26)

The ancient prophets received their revelation direct from the Spirit of God; the people then received it through their prophet ministry. These truths were then experientially confirmed through a personal walk with the Almighty and through of the obvious blessing that attended obedience to God and the judgment that came with disobedience. God was seen in His various appearances, in the ceremonial sacrificial system, in His provision to and protection of His people. These stirred their faith and developed their spiritual insight.

Your claim that "pre-tribbers take the book of Revelation literally" and your claim that "pre-tribbers thing the book of Revelation sequentially," are both simply. and radically, incorrect. Any pre-tribber you may have heard say such things had very little understanding of scripture.

Yes, that is most of them.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I must make this a direct appeal to you. How can you fail to see that the spirit that is driving you to make such serious and repeated deceptive statements, cannot be the Holy Spirit of God. He who is truth personified cannot lie, nor will He deceive.

You are consistently making arguments that are totally meaningless.

The one mentioned here is one of them, making a point of the fact that no Christian who wrote before the Revelation was given mentioned a doctrine that is only taught in the Revelation.

Another of these is claiming that because the entirety of a doctrine is never stated in a single passage, the scriptures do not teach it.

A third is that because a doctrine is not taught in a particular passage, the scriptures do not teach it.

A fourth is that because a particular word often used to present a concept is not used in a particular passage, that passage does not teach that concept using other words.

A fifth is that because a word is used in a certain way in one passage, it is used the same way in another passage.

A sixth is that because someone said something you agree with, he would not have also said something with which you do not agree.

All of these arguments sound good. But every one of them is totally meaningless.

Added to all this are numerous statements you have made that were factually incorrect. And when confronted with hard proof that your statements were factually incorrect, you simply denied the proof.

But the greatest problem is the arrogant spirit of many of your posts. This is not the way the Holy Spirit teaches.

So I am beseeching you to prayerfully consider what spirit it could be that is driving you to consistently do such things as all this.

This is rich coming from someone who cannot provide one single proof text for his theology. When you presented Revelation 3:10 as the answer to your obvious dilemma, I rebutted your post contextually and grammatical, but alas you were careful to steer around it, refusing to address or acknowledge the impotence of your reasoning.

If a rapture was indeed the actual reward for this early church’s faithfulness, then, why did they not experience it? After all, they are commended for being obedience and faithfulness. You cannot divorce the reward from the obedience that earned the reward here. Pretribs say the reward is the rapture. Well: did the Philadelphians receive this reward? Evidently not; neither will they. That particular local church is long gone, and they will not be raptured at the second coming in the future but rather resurrected (as the dead in Christ). But the resurrection is nothing particular to Philadelphians; it is an event that every single church in Revelation would one day experience. It is something that all the dead in Christ will enjoy. But none experience a rapture 2,000 years ago.

Now, will you please stop avoiding #62 and #74. Your constant side-stepping is a telling! It is not doing your cause any credit. In fact, if I was a Pretrib I would be alarmed.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Instead of letting the New Testament pages interpret the Old Testament predictions, many Premillennialists actually explain away the fuller revelation with their hyper-literal opinion of Old Testament prophecy. This is a defective mode of biblical interpretation. What results from it is Dispensational theology. While it is important to consider a text in its normal, grammatical, historical, contextual and cultural setting, we must ultimately establish what and when it is referring to. We primarily need to discern the actual meaning the Holy Spirit intended rather than what man would assign to it through his bias theological approach. If the Bible student fails to recognize the era and fulfilment in view, and what the New Testament writers say about the same, then they will be all over the place in their understanding.

Their bias toward literalism prevents them from objectively analyzing the inspired pages. It stops them acknowledging the diminished vision most Old Testament prophets had. It also prevents them from seeing how the New Testament fuller revelation interpreted these. Of course, it is difficult to definitively outline the degree of revelation the various generations of Old Testament saints enjoyed before the incarnation; but, what we do know is that the fullness of that progressive illumination reached unfathomable heights with the arrival and teaching of Christ.

Daniel is a case in point in Daniel 12:8-9, who admitted, “I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” While he was a definite conduit for the Spirit of God he didn’t necessarily have a vivid understanding of what he was relaying. He admits that he spoke beyond his own understanding. This confirms the supernatural aspect of prophecy. It is only with the revelation we possess today through the first advent and the New Testament that we can effectively fit the jigsaw puzzle bits together correctly.

The early church father Irenaeus put it well: “For every prophecy, before its fulfilment, is to men [full of] enigmas and ambiguities. But when the time has arrived, and the prediction has come to pass, then the prophecies have a clear and certain exposition. And for this reason, indeed, when at this present time the law is read to the Jews, it is like a fable; for they do not possess the explanation of all things pertaining to the advent of the Son of God, which took place in human nature; but when it is read by the Christians, it is a treasure, hid indeed in a field, but brought to light by the cross of Christ, and explained, both enriching the understanding of men, and showing forth the wisdom of God and declaring His dispensations with regard to man, and forming the kingdom of Christ beforehand, and preaching by anticipation the inheritance of the holy Jerusalem, and proclaiming beforehand that the man who loves God shall arrive at such excellency as even to see God, and hear His word, and from the hearing of His discourse be glorified to such an extent, that others cannot behold the glory of his countenance, as was said by Daniel: Those who do understand, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and many of the righteous as the stars for ever and ever. (Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter 26)

The ancient prophets received their revelation direct from the Spirit of God; the people then received it through their prophet ministry. These truths were then experientially confirmed through a personal walk with the Almighty and through of the obvious blessing that attended obedience to God and the judgment that came with disobedience. God was seen in His various appearances, in the ceremonial sacrificial system, in His provision to and protection of His people. These stirred their faith and developed their spiritual insight.



Yes, that is most of them.
Since you want to draw doctrine from early Christian writers, note that they also said:

“Since, then, we prove that all things which have already happened had been predicted by the prophets before they came to pass, we must necessarily believe also that those things which are in like manner predicted, but are yet to come to pass, shall certainly happen. For as the things which have already taken place came to pass when foretold, and even though unknown, so shall the things that remain, even though they be unknown and disbelieved, yet come to pass. For the prophets have proclaimed two advents of His: the one, that which is already past, when He came as a dishonoured and suffering Man; but the second, when, according to prophecy, He shall come from heaven with glory, accompanied by His angelic host, when also He shall raise the bodies of all men who have lived, and shall clothe those of the worthy with immortality, and shall send those of the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire with the wicked devils. And that these things also have been foretold as yet to be, we will prove. By Ezekiel the prophet it was said: “Joint shall be joined to joint, and bone to bone, and flesh shall grow again; and every knee shall bow to the Lord, and every tongue shall confess Him.” And in what kind of sensation and punishment the wicked are to be, hear from what was said in like manner with reference to this; it is as follows: “Their worm shall not rest, and their fire shall not be quenched;” and then shall they repent, when it profits them not.” (“The First Apology of Justin,” by Justin Martyr, chapter 52.)

Irenaeus, who in his writings systematically interpreted the prophetic writings literally, insisted on the importance of this literal interpretation by saying:

“If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize [prophecies] of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points, and shall be confuted by the teaching of the very expressions [in question]. For example: ‘When the cities’ of the Gentiles ‘shall be desolate, so that they be not inhabited, and the houses so that there shall be no men in them and the land shall be left desolate.’ ‘For, behold,’ says Isaiah, ‘the day of the Lord cometh past remedy, full of fury and wrath, to lay waste the city of the earth, and to root sinners out of it.’ And again he says, ‘Let him be taken away, that he behold not the glory of God.’ And when these things are done, he says, ‘God will remove men far away, and those that are left shall multiply in the earth.’ ‘And they shall build houses, and shall inhabit them themselves: and plant vineyards, and eat of them themselves.’ ” (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXXV, paragraph 1.)

And:

“From all these passages are revealed to us, not merely the particulars of the apostasy, and [the doings] of him who concentrates in himself every satanic error, but also, that there is one and the same God the Father, who was declared by the prophets, but made manifest by Christ. For if what Daniel prophesied concerning the end has been confirmed by the Lord, when He said, ‘When ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet’ (and the angel Gabriel gave the interpretation of the visions to Daniel, and he is the archangel of the Creator (Demiurgi), who also proclaimed to Mary the visible coming and the incarnation of Christ), then one and the same God is most manifestly pointed out, who sent the prophets, and made promise of the Son, and called us into His knowledge. (Against Heresies, by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXV, paragraph 3.)

And:

“Now, to upset all conceits of this sort, let me dispel at once the preliminary idea on which they rest—their assertion that the prophets make all their announcements in figures of speech. Now, if this were the case, the figures themselves could not possibly have been distinguished, inasmuch as the verities would not have been declared, out of which the figurative language is stretched. And, indeed, if all are figures, where will be that of which they are the figures? How can you hold up a mirror for your face, if the face nowhere exists? But, in truth, all are not figures, but there are also literal statements; nor are all shadows, but there are bodies too: so that we have prophecies about the Lord Himself even, which are clearer than the day For it was not figuratively that the Virgin conceived in her womb; nor in a trope did she bear Emmanuel, that is, Jesus, God with us. Even granting that He was figuratively to take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, still it was literally that He was to ‘enter into judgment with the elders and princes of the people.’ For in the person of Pilate ‘the heathen raged,’ and in the person of Isreal ‘the people imagined vain things;’ ‘the kings of the earth’ in Herod, and the rulers in Annas and Caiaphas, were ‘gathered together against the Lord, and against His anointed.’ He, again, was ‘led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a sheep before the shearer,’ that is, Herod, ‘is dumb, so He opened not His mouth.’ ‘He gave His back to scourges, and His cheeks to blows, not turning His face even from the shame of spitting.’ ‘He was numbered with the transgressors;’ ’He was pierced in His hands and His feet;’ ‘they cast lots for his raiment’ ‘they gave Him gall, and made Him drink vinegar;’ ‘they shook their heads, and mocked Him;’ ‘He was appraised by the traitor in thirty pieces of silver.’ What figures of speech does Isaiah here give us? What tropes does David? What allegories does Jeremiah? Not even of His mighty works have they used parabolic language. Or else, were not the eyes of the blind opened? did not the tongue of the dumb recover speech? did not the relaxed hands and palsied knees become strong, and the lame leap as an hart? No doubt we are accustomed also to give a spiritual significance to these statements of prophecy, according to the analogy of the physical diseases which were healed by the Lord; but still they were all fulfilled literally: thus showing that the prophets foretold both senses, except that very many of their words can only be taken in a pure and simple signification, and free from all allegorical obscurity; as when we hear of the downfall of nations and cities, of Tyre and Egypt, and Babylon and Edom, and the navy of Carthage; also when they foretell Isreal’s own chastisements and pardons, its captivities, restorations, and at last its final dispersion. Who would prefer affixing a metaphorical interpretation to all these events, instead of accepting their literal truth? The realities are involved in the words, just as the words are read in the realities. Thus, then, (we find that) the allegorical style is not used in all parts of the prophetic record, although it occasionally occurs in certain portions of it.” (“On the Resurrection of the Flesh,” by Tertullian, chapter 20, Translated by Dr. Holmes, from “The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers,” vol. 3, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, as found in its American edition ed. by A. Cleveland Coxe)

And:

“Now, if even parables obscure not the light of the gospel, how unlikely it is that plain sentences and declarations, which have an unmistakeable meaning, should signify any other thing than their literal sense!” (“On the Resurrection of the Flesh,” by Tertullian, chapter 33, Translated by Dr. Holmes, from “The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers,” vol. 3, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, as found in its American edition ed. by A. Cleveland Coxe)

And, even as late as the turn of the fifth century, Augustin said:

“But in addition to the foregoing rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal, we must also pay heed to that which tells us not to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative. In the first place, then, we must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative.” (“On Christian Doctrine,” by Augustin, translated by Richard Stothert, M.A., Bombay, book III, chapter 10, from “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, vol 4, ed. by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D.)

And finally, we come to Jerome, a contemporary of Augustin, who said concerning Daniel 7:8 that:

“We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings... Then after they have been slain, the seven other kings will bow their necks to the victor.” (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” by Jerome, pg. 77, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., pub. by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
This is rich coming from someone who cannot provide one single proof text for his theology. When you presented Revelation 3:10 as the answer to your obvious dilemma, I rebutted your post contextually and grammatical, but alas you were careful to steer around it, refusing to address or acknowledge the impotence of your reasoning.

If a rapture was indeed the actual reward for this early church’s faithfulness, then, why did they not experience it? After all, they are commended for being obedience and faithfulness. You cannot divorce the reward from the obedience that earned the reward here. Pretribs say the reward is the rapture. Well: did the Philadelphians receive this reward? Evidently not; neither will they. That particular local church is long gone, and they will not be raptured at the second coming in the future but rather resurrected (as the dead in Christ). But the resurrection is nothing particular to Philadelphians; it is an event that every single church in Revelation would one day experience. It is something that all the dead in Christ will enjoy. But none experience a rapture 2,000 years ago.

Now, will you please stop avoiding #62 and #74. Your constant side-stepping is a telling! It is not doing your cause any credit. In fact, if I was a Pretrib I would be alarmed.

You have not "rebutted" any of my posts, but only posted silly quibbles about them. I will eventually get around to showing your utter failure in attempting to prove your point in these if I ever have time. But I have work to do for my Lord, and cannot devote my entire time to disproving mere quibbles.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Going back to post #1, the post I lifted from theprevious thread opened by saying:

Pretrib contradictions

Having noticed the notable silence of Pretribbers when it comes to presenting actual evidence of a Pretrib paradigm in Scripture, and their inability to answer some simple recent question, I thought I would highlight some of the notable contradictions in their approach to the book of Revelations.

While I was not involved to any significant degree in discussion with you in that thread, I can clearly see from our interaction here that there have been two reasons that the pre-tribbers with whom you have interacted have not presented evidence to you.

One of the reasons is that most of your arguments are so trivial that they do not even deserve an answer. And the second reason, which is much more to the point, is that you attack yhe truth with such fervor that, before a person has time to answer one quibble, you have presented five more of the same sort of pablum.

And on the side, I will note that there is no book in .the Bible called “the book of Revelations.” Its name is “Revelation,” not “Revelations.” While this, in itself, is a trivial point, it reveals a neophyte level of scriptural scho]larship. Sadly, some, who studyo the Bible all their lives, never progress beyond the neophyte level, because they approach the scriptures in a fleshly way.

From this, you progressed to accusing pre-tribbers in general of making a large number of silly errors that reveal that the pre-tribbers with whom you have been in contact were themselves neophlytes in scripture. About half of the arguments you attribute to pre-tribbers as standard, are never made by any leading teacher in the movement.||rom this you progressed to fifteen points which you imagined to be very significant. I will take them p one at a time.

(1) The word “Church,” as in the elect redeemed (born again) Church, is not mentioned anywhere in Revelation. There are only references to the local churches (which includes saved and unsaved) in Asia Minor in the last book in the Bible.

You said this in regard to the precisely correct observaton that the church is never mentioned in the book of Revelation after chapter 3. This is an invalid argument because it attempts to negate an observation about one part of scripture with quibbles about other parts of scripture.
(2) The whole book of Revelation was written to local churches in Asia Minor 2,000 years ago for the expressed purpose of encouraging them in their hour of trial.

The first part of this is immaterial. For althugh it was specifically addressed to these seven churches, for even before that address is stated, it says, “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.” (Revelation 1:3) So this message is also sent to all Christians of all time.

And the second part is contrary to explicitly stated scripture. For the stated purpose of this revelation was “to show His servants--things which must shortly take place.” (Revelation 1:1)

(3) Words, terms, titles and descriptions that are repeatedly used elsewhere in the New Testament to describe the Church of Jesus Christ are used regularly in Revelation 4 to 19 to describe the true Church of Jesus Christ.

This is factually incorrect. These words, terms, titles, and descriptions were used elsewhere to describe believers, but not in referring to the church, as such.

(4) The apostate “churches” and their phony believers miss the rapture and enter this supposed 7 year tribulation, according to Pretrib – but the non-mention of the apostate “churches” must prove they are not on earth either. Where have they gone to?

In the first place, this is an inane argument. And in the second place it is factually incorrect. Unbelieving professors are mentioned repeatedly in the book of Revelation, mostly in regard to their giving up even the remnants of truth they had formerly professed.

(5) The word “Church” is not found in Revelation 4 in the Pretrib rapture

Here, you are basing your argument on arguments given you by ignorant persons, ratiher than on arguments made by leaders of pre-trib thinking. For the argument is not that “the word ‘church’ is not found in Revelatiin 4-20,” but that “the church” is never mentioned. And I am not aware of a single leader of pre-trib thought tha argues that Revelation 4 is the rapture.

(6) The word “Church” is not found in the heavenly passages between Revelation 4 and 19. Using Pretrib logic, then they must be in heaven either.
(7) The word “Church” is not found in Revelation 19 for the Pretrib 3rd Coming. So, they cannot be part of that supposed event.
(8) The word “Church” not found in Revelation 20 in the millennium. They cannot therefore be part of that period of time.
(9) The word ‘“Church” not found in Revelation 21 in the eternal state. They cannot therefore be part of the eternal state.
(10) The word ‘“Church” not found in many places throughout the New Testament.
(11) The word ‘“Church” is not found in all the popular Pretrib proof texts.
(12) What about the absence of the word “Jew” and “Hebrew” from Revelation 4-19, and the absence of the word “Israel” after Revelation 7.
(13) What about the non-mention of the popular Pretrib term ‘tribulation saints’ in Revelation 4-19?


All of these are based on your straw man of obsessing over the usage of specific words, rather than on the presentations of concepts.


(14) Whilst “the Church” has been caught up at the Coming of Christ, even Pretrib teaches that local churches continue to exist after the rapture! Why are these churches not mentioned?

This is factually incorrect. For it explicitly says of the church in Thyatira, “Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.” (Revelation 2:22) The church in Sardis was told “Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.” (Revelation 3:3) And the church of the Laodiceans was told “So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.” (Revelation 3:16)

(15) Does the strange silence of the word “Christian” in Revelation 1-3 not prove Christians are not present or in view?

His is again your straw man argument of obsessing over words, rather than concepts. The word “Christian” does not occur in Revelation 1-3 because that word refers to individuals, and these chapters speak of groups, rather than individuals.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: fwGod
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Going back to post #1, the post I lifted from theprevious thread opened by saying:



While I was not involved to any significant degree in discussion with you in that thread, I can clearly see from our interaction here that there have been two reasons that the pre-tribbers with whom you have interacted have not presented evidence to you.

One of the reasons is that most of your arguments are so trivial that they do not even deserve an answer. And the second reason, which is much more to the point, is that you attack yhe truth with such fervor that, before a person has time to answer one quibble, you have presented five more of the same sort of pablum.

And on the side, I will note that there is no book in .the Bible called “the book of Revelations.” Its name is “Revelation,” not “Revelations.” While this, in itself, is a trivial point, it reveals a neophyte level of scriptural scho]larship. Sadly, some, who studyo the Bible all their lives, never progress beyond the neophyte level, because they approach the scriptures in a fleshly way.

From this, you progressed to accusing pre-tribbers in general of making a large number of silly errors that reveal that the pre-tribbers with whom you have been in contact were themselves neophlytes in scripture. About half of the arguments you attribute to pre-tribbers as standard, are never made by any leading teacher in the movement.||rom this you progressed to fifteen points which you imagined to be very significant. I will take them p one at a time.

For you to rubbish my writings or dismiss my position on the grounds of one simple typo is petty, disappointing and shows that you are struggling badly to rebut my detailed arguments. I am actually trying to get you to address Scripture instead of you cutting and pasting your posts but you cannot seem to operate outside of that. You cannot seem to deal with someone challenging your opinions.

For the record: there are many times when I use voice dictation in an application on my Mac to assist quicker writing that it misspells a word. I don't always notice it when I make a post. It is sad that you would try and make anything of such. Reading over just your initial petty complaint, I notice a lot of schoolboy errors in your writings.

For the record, " neophytes" is not spelt "neophlytes" and "study" is not spelt "studyo" and "the truth" is not spelt "yhe truth." Also, when saying two words "theprevious" it is important to leave a space between them like this: "the previous." Also, when you write the word "scholarship" it is wrong to place a bracket in the middle of it. This is just a survey of the couple of paragraphs you spent lecturing me on "scho]larship." I could go on and on in your writing, and, yes, I am being petty. "While this, in itself, is a trivial point, it reveals a neophyte level of scriptural scho]larship. Sadly, some, who study the Bible all their lives, never progress beyond the neophyte level, because they approach the scriptures in a fleshly way."

For the record: I often use voice dictation on my Mac to assist quicker writing. There are many times when I use it that it misspells a word. I don't always catch it before I post. It is sad that you would try and make anything of such.

I will await your apology to this moot point!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here, you are basing your argument on arguments given you by ignorant persons, ratiher than on arguments made by leaders of pre-trib thinking. For the argument is not that “the word ‘church’ is not found in Revelatiin 4-20,” but that “the church” is never mentioned. And I am not aware of a single leader of pre-trib thought tha argues that Revelation 4 is the rapture.

You rebuke me for my typo "Revelations" and use it as a point to dismiss my writings and credentials as a Bible student, yet in the same post you go on to spell Revelation as "Revelatiin." Would that not be considered hypocritical? At least "Revelations" is closer than "Revelatiin." This is academic spelling for a man purporting to be an eschatology authority, writer, theologian and a scholar. Also, the word "ratiher" is actually spelt "rather" and "tha" should read "that."
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Going back to post #1, the post I lifted from theprevious thread opened by saying:



While I was not involved to any significant degree in discussion with you in that thread, I can clearly see from our interaction here that there have been two reasons that the pre-tribbers with whom you have interacted have not presented evidence to you.

One of the reasons is that most of your arguments are so trivial that they do not even deserve an answer. And the second reason, which is much more to the point, is that you attack yhe truth with such fervor that, before a person has time to answer one quibble, you have presented five more of the same sort of pablum.

And on the side, I will note that there is no book in .the Bible called “the book of Revelations.” Its name is “Revelation,” not “Revelations.” While this, in itself, is a trivial point, it reveals a neophyte level of scriptural scho]larship. Sadly, some, who studyo the Bible all their lives, never progress beyond the neophyte level, because they approach the scriptures in a fleshly way.

From this, you progressed to accusing pre-tribbers in general of making a large number of silly errors that reveal that the pre-tribbers with whom you have been in contact were themselves neophlytes in scripture. About half of the arguments you attribute to pre-tribbers as standard, are never made by any leading teacher in the movement.||rom this you progressed to fifteen points which you imagined to be very significant. I will take them p one at a time.



You said this in regard to the precisely correct observaton that the church is never mentioned in the book of Revelation after chapter 3. This is an invalid argument because it attempts to negate an observation about one part of scripture with quibbles about other parts of scripture.
(2) The whole book of Revelation was written to local churches in Asia Minor 2,000 years ago for the expressed purpose of encouraging them in their hour of trial.

The first part of this is immaterial. For althugh it was specifically addressed to these seven churches, for even before that address is stated, it says, “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.” (Revelation 1:3) So this message is also sent to all Christians of all time.

And the second part is contrary to explicitly stated scripture. For the stated purpose of this revelation was “to show His servants--things which must shortly take place.” (Revelation 1:1)

(3) Words, terms, titles and descriptions that are repeatedly used elsewhere in the New Testament to describe the Church of Jesus Christ are used regularly in Revelation 4 to 19 to describe the true Church of Jesus Christ.

This is factually incorrect. These words, terms, titles, and descriptions were used elsewhere to describe believers, but not in referring to the church, as such.

(4) The apostate “churches” and their phony believers miss the rapture and enter this supposed 7 year tribulation, according to Pretrib – but the non-mention of the apostate “churches” must prove they are not on earth either. Where have they gone to?

In the first place, this is an inane argument. And in the second place it is factually incorrect. Unbelieving professors are mentioned repeatedly in the book of Revelation, mostly in regard to their giving up even the remnants of truth they had formerly professed.

(5) The word “Church” is not found in Revelation 4 in the Pretrib rapture

Here, you are basing your argument on arguments given you by ignorant persons, ratiher than on arguments made by leaders of pre-trib thinking. For the argument is not that “the word ‘church’ is not found in Revelatiin 4-20,” but that “the church” is never mentioned. And I am not aware of a single leader of pre-trib thought tha argues that Revelation 4 is the rapture.

(6) The word “Church” is not found in the heavenly passages between Revelation 4 and 19. Using Pretrib logic, then they must be in heaven either.
(7) The word “Church” is not found in Revelation 19 for the Pretrib 3rd Coming. So, they cannot be part of that supposed event.
(8) The word “Church” not found in Revelation 20 in the millennium. They cannot therefore be part of that period of time.
(9) The word ‘“Church” not found in Revelation 21 in the eternal state. They cannot therefore be part of the eternal state.
(10) The word ‘“Church” not found in many places throughout the New Testament.
(11) The word ‘“Church” is not found in all the popular Pretrib proof texts.
(12) What about the absence of the word “Jew” and “Hebrew” from Revelation 4-19, and the absence of the word “Israel” after Revelation 7.
(13) What about the non-mention of the popular Pretrib term ‘tribulation saints’ in Revelation 4-19?


All of these are based on your straw man of obsessing over the usage of specific words, rather than on the presentations of concepts.


(14) Whilst “the Church” has been caught up at the Coming of Christ, even Pretrib teaches that local churches continue to exist after the rapture! Why are these churches not mentioned?

This is factually incorrect. For it explicitly says of the church in Thyatira, “Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.” (Revelation 2:22) The church in Sardis was told “Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.” (Revelation 3:3) And the church of the Laodiceans was told “So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.” (Revelation 3:16)

(15) Does the strange silence of the word “Christian” in Revelation 1-3 not prove Christians are not present or in view?

His is again your straw man argument of obsessing over words, rather than concepts. The word “Christian” does not occur in Revelation 1-3 because that word refers to individuals, and these chapters speak of groups, rather than individuals.

It would be easier for the reader for you to show my comments in quotes. Even though I may know, it is confusing for others to read this post, and grasp what is me and what is you.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
(1) You said this in regard to the precisely correct observaton that the church is never mentioned in the book of Revelation after chapter 3. This is an invalid argument because it attempts to negate an observation about one part of scripture with quibbles about other parts of scripture.

When we examine the Holy Spirit’s use of the word church (or churches) in “the first three chapters” of Revelation, we see that every single mention refers to a local gathering of the visible church in Asia Minor, not the invisible universal redeemed body of believers that Gromacki is actually talking about. These references come to seventeen in total and are found in Revelation 1: 4, 11, 20; 2:1, 7, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, 29; 3:1, 6, 7, 13, 14, 22.

So, there is not one reference to “the true Church” as a spiritual organism prior to Revelation 4:1. This totally negates the whole Pretrib argument.

Let us be very clear, just because someone belongs to a local church means nothing. Salvation is not secured by attending a local church. God’s favour is not automatically on a local church; it isn’t now and it wasn’t then, and it won’t at the end. We just have to look at some of the things he said to those churches in question.

The church of Ephesus had left its first love (Revelation 2:4). The church in Pergamos was being destroyed with the “doctrine of Balaam” (Revelation 2:14) and the “doctrine of the Nicolaitans” (Revelation 2:15). The church in Thyatira was being seduced by a Jezebel spirit (Revelation 2:20). The church of the Laodiceans was lukewarm and Christ was about to spew it out of His mouth.

Surely no Prettribber would consider these mere church attendees “true believers” on the grounds of their (local) church attendance. Not one reference in Revelation chapters 1-3 therefore refers to “the true Church” that the Pretribbers argue is non-existent during their 7 years tribulation between Revelation 4:1 and Revelation 19. They all relate to dysfunctional local assemblies. So if there is any consistency in the Pretib argument they would have to concede that there is not one reference to “the true church” in the whole book of Revelation.

(2) The first part of this is immaterial. For althugh it was specifically addressed to these seven churches, for even before that address is stated, it says, “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.” (Revelation 1:3) So this message is also sent to all Christians of all time.

And the second part is contrary to explicitly stated scripture. For the stated purpose of this revelation was “to show His servants--things which must shortly take place.” (Revelation 1:1)

Unquestionably, the whole book of Revelation was initially and primarily addressed to the seven Asian churches of John’s day. Notwithstanding, like every other New Testament epistle, it has a current and powerful relevance for the Church today as it has previously been down through history. It will also have relevance for the Church right up until the glorious Second Advent. There is no doubt that the other New Testament books (in whole) from Matthew to Jude were initially written to early church Christians and/or to specific local assemblies of them Christians, as a marvelous inspired record and testimony to the person, work and teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, they also carry a wider relevance to the Church of the Jesus Christ– period – as an infallible Divine message of truth, instruction and admonition to the Church.

(3) This is factually incorrect. These words, terms, titles, and descriptions were used elsewhere to describe believers, but not in referring to the church, as such.

Not so. Please read the NT and you will see these words frequently used to describe the redeemed. The Church is found on earth throughout Revelation 4-19.

The Church throughout the Word is shown to be made up of the “saints” (Revelation 5:8, 8:3, 8:4, 11:18, 13:7, 13:10, 14:12, 15:3, 16:6, 17:6, 19:8 and 20:9), the “redeemed” (Revelation 5:9, 14:3 and 14:4), “them which are saved” (Revelation 21:24), the “brethren” (Revelation 6:11, 12:10, 19:10, 22:9), the chosen (or elect), and faithful (Revelation 17:4), “servants” of God (Revelation 1:1, 2:20, 7:3, 10:7, 11:18, 19:2, 19:5, 22:3 and 22:6).

Frankly, if these aren’t Christians, what are they?

The Church is described as those that possess the faith of Jesus (Revelation 14:1), and consequently carry “the testimony of Jesus” (Revelation 1:2, 9, 12:17, 19:10), and are “the witness of Jesus” (Revelation 20:4). They exhibit the “patience of Jesus” (Revelation 1:9), and many become the “martyrs of Jesus” (Revelation 17:6).

Frankly, if these aren’t Christians, what are they?

The Church is the “woman” (Revelation 12:1,4, 6, 13, 15, 16 and 17), “the bride” of Christ (Revelation 18:23, 21:9, 22:17), “the Lamb's wife” (Revelation 19:7 and 21:9), “the temple” (Revelation 3:12, 11:1 and 2).

Frankly, if these aren’t Christians, what are they?

They are those “in / with white robes,” who are washed in the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 3:4, 5, 18, 4:4, 6:11, 7:9, 13, 14, and 19:8, 14), and are now “kings and priests” (Revelation 1:6, 5:10 and 20:6), they are the “souls” in heaven (Revelation 6:9 and 20:4), the “fellowservants” (Revelation 6:11). God calls them as “my people” (Revelation 18:4) and “his people” (Revelation 21:3).

Frankly, if these aren’t Christians, what are they?

The Church relates to those “that overcometh” (Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26, 3:5, 12, 21 and 21:7), and “that watcheth, and keepeth their garments” (Revelation 16:15), “they that do/keep God’s commandments” (Revelation 12:17, 14:12 and 21:14), and “they which are written in the Lamb's book of life” (Revelation 21:27).

Frankly, if these aren’t Christians, what are they?

The Church is described as “the dead which die in the Lord” (Revelation 14:13), as “them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark” (Revelation 15:2), “much people in heaven” (Revelation 19:1), who are “a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues” (Revelation 7:9), and are “out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Revelation 5:9), and are “the armies which were in heaven” (Revelation 19:14).

(4) In the first place, this is an inane argument. And in the second place it is factually incorrect. Unbelieving professors are mentioned repeatedly in the book of Revelation, mostly in regard to their giving up even the remnants of truth they had formerly professed.

Pretibbers present the seven dysfunctional local assemblies in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 that are full of false prophets, false doctrines and false professors as supposed evidence that the true Church is still on earth. But are these not the same type of churches and believers that Pretrib argues misses the rapture? They contend that it is only the true Church and the true believers that make the catching away. So, the countless apostate churches and the numerous false believers existing today that will be present at the catching away actually enter the Pretrib 7-year tribulation. So why are they not mentioned in Revelation 4 to 19?

The absence of any mention of these apostate churches must surely prove (if Pretrib is consistent) that they are not present during the 7-year tribulation. Where are these counterfeit assemblies with their false prophets? Everyone know there are countless today, so there will be countless that miss Christ’s Coming. Why are they not recognised or named during this period? This is surely proof (if we use Pretib logic) that they have been removed from the earth???

(5) Here, you are basing your argument on arguments given you by ignorant persons, ratiher than on arguments made by leaders of pre-trib thinking. For the argument is not that “the word ‘church’ is not found in Revelatiin 4-20,” but that “the church” is never mentioned. And I am not aware of a single leader of pre-trib thought tha argues that Revelation 4 is the rapture.

Speaking of a supposed secret Pretrib rapture of the Church, Dispensational writer Denis Lyle, in his book ‘Countdown to Apocalypse’ succinctly affirms, “Revelation 4:1 is a picture of all believers being ‘caught up’ at the Rapture of the Church” (p. 152).

This is such a moot argument, devoid of any reasonable viable interpretative substance. It is actually highly contradictory. Rev. Charles Cooper highlights this, arguing, “Nowhere in all of the New Testament is there warrant to apply the understanding that John represents the church in Rev. 4:1. The context clearly implies that ‘John’ refers to... John, and no one else. He is simply given a heavenly perspective of what is going on behind the visible world and what will take place during the last days. Nothing else. To say otherwise is to grasp at straws to try to support a hollow argument” (Why is the church not mentioned in Revelation 4-22?).

Referring to Revelation 4:1, strong Pretrib advocate Jack Van Impe states in his book Revelation Revealed, “John states, ‘After this.’ After what? After the completion of the history of the seven churches. After this, John sees a door opened in heaven and hears a trumpet-like voice loudly and victoriously crying, ‘Come up hither.’ This is the rapture of the church of Jesus Christ.”

Pretribs passionately argue that the rapture of the Church occurs in Revelation 4:1, yet, the word “church” is notably not remotely mentioned anywhere in Revelation 4 (or 5).

We can immediately identify a major discrepancy in the Pretrib rationale. If the non-mention of the word church between chapters 4 &19 is their main justification for arguing the Church can’t be present on the earth during that period (which they say is a 7-year tribulation) then we should apply that same logic to the non-mention of the word in Revelation 4 – which is their proof text in Revelation for a rapture before the tribulation.

If Prettrib is consistent in their reasoning on the absence of the word “church” then their argument relating to chapters 4 &19 must be equally applied to their understanding of Revelation 4 also. Significantly, if it is, then they have absolutely no basis whatsoever for locating the Church in Revelation 4, as they do, and therefore arguing for a secret rapture of the Church in that chapter. On the basis of this logic we can safely assume that the Church isn’t remotely in view or can it participate in the happenings of this chapter.

Pretrib hermeneutics actually end up destroying the Pretrib doctrine. When consistently applied, it pulls apart the whole foundation of Pretrib.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
(6) The word “Church” is not found in the heavenly passages between Revelation 4 and 19. Using Pretrib logic, then they must be in heaven either.
(7) The word “Church” is not found in Revelation 19 for the Pretrib 3rd Coming. So, they cannot be part of that supposed event.
(8) The word “Church” not found in Revelation 20 in the millennium. They cannot therefore be part of that period of time.
(9) The word ‘“Church” not found in Revelation 21 in the eternal state. They cannot therefore be part of the eternal state.
(10) The word ‘“Church” not found in many places throughout the New Testament.
(11) The word ‘“Church” is not found in all the popular Pretrib proof texts.
(12) What about the absence of the word “Jew” and “Hebrew” from Revelation 4-19, and the absence of the word “Israel” after Revelation 7.
(13) What about the non-mention of the popular Pretrib term ‘tribulation saints’ in Revelation 4-19?

All of these are based on your straw man of obsessing over the usage of specific words, rather than on the presentations of concepts.

I totally understand why you would avoid these points, because they expose the Pretrib theory.

Pretrib writer Robert Gromacki writes in an article Where is "the Church" in Revelation 4-19?: “Where is the church during the seven-year Tribulation, as outlined in Revelation 4-19? If posttribulationism were correct, you would expect to see the church mentioned as being on earth during this time. However, that is not the picture one sees in Revelation 4-19. This writer demonstrates through investigating many of the details of Revelation 4-19 that the church is pictured in heaven with Christ, having been raptured before the Tribulation began.”

This type of reasoning has been used for years, and may even sound convincing to the ignorant, but when analysed under the microscope of accuracy and reliability it is quickly exposed as a flawed mode of interpretation. Firstly, running with Pretrib logic and applying it to its own belief actually results in the disintegration of Pretrib. The argument that the Church must now safely be found in heaven whilst a 7-year tribulation rages on earth simply because we don’t find “the church mentioned as being on earth during this time” can swiftly be turned back on Pretrib as an argument why the Church can’t be in heaven.

In fact, the same argument Pretrib attempts to negate the possibility of the Church’s presence on earth during Revelation 4-19 can equally be used to negate the possibility of the Church’s presence in heaven. After all, one distinctly finds that despite all the many explicit references to the heavenly abode and the many activities outlined therein (between Revelation 4-19), the Church isn’t cited once. This must therefore be proof that they aren’t there (using Pretrib logic)?

Heaven is mentioned in Revelation 4:1-2, 5:3, 13, 6:13-14, 8:1, 10, 13, 9:1, 10:1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11:12 (X2), 13, 15, 19, 12:1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13:6, 13, 14:2, 6, 7, 13, 17, 15:1, 5, 16:11, 17, 21, 18:1, 4, 5, 20, 19:1, 11, 14, 17. This is all in the supposed Pretrib tribulation period.

If this Pretrib mode of interpretation is correct (namely the absence of the name denotes the absence of the said subjects) then the Church has mysteriously disappeared into the unknown for a supposed seven-year period – it is evidently not found in heaven and it is not mentioned and it is not found on earth. Where then is the Church?

With its bizarre mode of thinking, Pretrib can only at best imply the Church is in heaven, due to the fact the eclessia is not mentioned by name on earth. However, this reasoning is incongruous. This way of building such a fundamental Dispensational belief seems pretty inadequate and unreliable, and demonstrates the unsafe manner of interpretation within that school of thought.

(14)This is factually incorrect. For it explicitly says of the church in Thyatira, “Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.” (Revelation 2:22) The church in Sardis was told “Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.” (Revelation 3:3) And the church of the Laodiceans was told “So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.” (Revelation 3:16)

You are not answering my point: If local “churches” are all that is mentioned by name in Revelation and not the redeemed “Church” then according to Pretrib thinking, movies and novels, local churches continue to operate and even thrive after the catching away, albeit devoid of all their previous authentic members. Pretribs teach that the rapture causes countless of those left behind to run to the vacated local churches to get right with God, for refuge and for fellowship. Backslidden preachers and new converts that had previously rejected the truth preach the Gospel of Christ to those left behind. This results in mass conversions. Revelation 7:9 describes “a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands.” The preaching was obviously highly effective.

Pretrib writer Ray Brubaker speaks of how things will be after the Pretrib rapture in an article Is The Rapture the Reward of Readiness on www.raptureready.com: “There will be churches filled with people studying the Scriptures to discover why they were left behind. And they will find that if they live for the Lord every day amidst great persecution and do not deny their faith or surrender to Antichrist, they can be saved. However, it must be remembered in that day that you can't buy or sell unless you identify with the Antichrist world system.”

Local churches therefore continue to exist and actually prosper in this great tribulation period. The same local churches that existed before the rapture continue after the rapture, albeit with largely different congregations.

Pretribs highlighting the absence of the word “Church,” obviously relating also to local churches, is demolished by their own belief that local churches will be packed with repentant sinners as people realize they have missed the rapture.

(15) His is again your straw man argument of obsessing over words, rather than concepts. The word “Christian” does not occur in Revelation 1-3 because that word refers to individuals, and these chapters speak of groups, rather than individuals.

I am using Pretrib reasoning to defeat Pretrib. It simply does not add up! 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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,583
7,777
63
Martinez
✟894,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The early Christian writers were remarkably (even though not totally) uniform in their opinions. But as the centuries passed, the church gave up a great amount of the truth she originally held. So there is very little uniformity between the early and late ancient writers.
Do you trust all the teachings of Irenaeus? For example, he, as well as Justin and Tertullian, held to a seven fold arrangement of time, seven 1000 year periods. He also believed he was living in the 6th millennium, which is problematic. He also did not separate the two people of God, Israel and the church.For Irenaeus there were only two classes of people, saved and unsaved.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do you trust all the teachings of Irenaeus? For example, he, as well as Justin and Tertullian, held to a seven fold arrangement of time, seven 1000 year periods. He also believed he was living in the 6th millennium, which is problematic. He also did not separate the two people of God, Israel and the church.For Irenaeus there were only two classes of people, saved and unsaved.

Also, he believed in three different abodes for the righteous and eternity.

Against Heresies Book V (Chapter XXXVI)

2. [They say, moreover], that there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundred-fold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold: for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second will dwell in paradise, the last will inhabit the city; and that it was on this account the Lord declared, "In my Father's house are many mansions." For all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling-place; even as His Word says, that a share is allotted to all by the Father, according as each person is or shall be worthy. And this is the couch on which the guests shall recline, having been invited to the wedding. The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, affirm that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature; also that they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, and that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle, "For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." For in the times of the kingdom, the righteous man who is upon the earth shall then forget to die. "But when He saith, All things shall be subdued unto Him, it is manifest that He is excepted who did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."

This strange construct seems to be a half-way house for the believer between this age and the eternal state. Unlike this age, the redeemed in this supposed future millennial state seem to have the ability not to sin (and consequently die) – so this seems to be a superior arrangement than ours. Such a condition is shown scripturally to be impossible in this life. Notwithstanding, they have not been fully glorified or perfected either as the elect are described in Scripture in their eternal state.

The millennial period painted by Ireneus seems to be a grading school to determine which eternal home the elect deserve.

Ireneus outlines three homes here for the redeemed (1) heaven, (2) paradise and (3) an earthly Jerusalem. Heaven is for the hundred-fold believers, paradise is for the sixty-fold believers, and Jerusalem is for the thirty-fold believers.
  • 1st class: 30-fold – Heaven – (Spirit)
  • 2nd class: 60-fold – Paradise – (Son)
  • 3rd class: 100-fold - The City – presumably the New Jerusalem: (Father)
Ireneus takes his strange belief direct from Premillennialist Papias, who was the first Christian writer to advocate such a theory; although the same Papias attributes his views in turn to “the presbyters.” He equally anticipated 3 eternal homes: “an abode in heaven ... the delights of Paradise, and ... the splendour of the city.” He makes a “distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundred-fold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold.” He therefore not only foresaw different types of reward but he saw different eternal abodes.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
You opened Post 62 with a factually incorrect statement:
Thank you for actually offering some Scripture. It is actually refreshing for a Pretribber to do so. The only problem is: the text that you are presenting makes absolutely no reference to your supposed future rapture.

This is factually incorrect on two counts.

First, Pre-tribbers usually are quite ready to present the scriptural basis for their claims. But you simply deny that what they say is a scriptural basis. You usually do this in the basis of your faulty and illogical argument that the scriptures do not teach a docgtrine unless they state its entirety on a single short passage.

And second, if you had bothered to actually read what I posted, instead of simply reacting to it emotionally, you would know that I clearly demonstrated that this passage does indeed speak of the rapture. I did this by examining each Greek word used in the original. Both in its general meaning and in its specific meaning in relationship to the other Greek words used in the original text of this passage. You claim to have refuted what I said, but you did not even address most of the points I made.

Then, after quoting the entire messahe to the angel of the church in Philadelphia, you proceeded to present your interpretation of the meaning of this passage without even considering the clear locic I presented.

Out of your interpretation of the meaning of this passage, you then reasoned:

From a Pretrib perspective these early Philadelphian Christians experienced no actual reward from Christ for their faithfulness? Pretrib renders this an empty promise.

What was the reward that the Church at Philadelphia experienced (that was obviously unique to them and different from the other 6 churches)?

If the reward for being faithful was merely not living in the last 7 yrs of time was the reward meaning they would miss this Pretrib tribulation then it was a reward all of the churches over this past 2,000 yrs ago everywhere have equally experienced. But it wasn’t. It was particular to this local church and it was expressly related to their actual obedience.

This reasoning would indeed be significant if your interpretation of the meanng of this passage were correct. But you did not even stop to consider whether or not your interpretation was ineed correct. You correctly pointed out that these words were addressed to a local church that existed nearly 2000 years ago. But you illogically reasoned that, therefore, this is the entire meanng and purpose of this passage. This is something that you have assumed, but for which you have not presented, and can not present, even one iota of proof.



You then made another factually incorrect statement which proved thag you had never even bothered to read the post to which you were emotionally reacting. For you said:

Here are 4 elementary question on the only text you want to talk about which you can’t even answer. That certainly brings major red flags to the stage.

In my post I had specifically and explicitly discussed a number of texts of scripture. So the fact that you assumed I had only wanted to talk about” a single text is hard proof that you never even bothered to read my post.


But now to deal with your four supposedly unanswerable questions:

Where is the Church (as the collective body of Christ) mentioned here?

“The church” is specifically stated in the word “you,” because this was addressed to the church. Except that this particular promise was only made to a part of the church, so the overall bodyis nt mentioned. Oterscriptures show that this applies to all real believers.

Where is a rapture mentioned in Revelation 3:10?

The rapture is found in the words “I will keep you out of the hour of trial.” Here, the words “Keep you from the hour” is a translation of the Greek word “se tereo ek tes horas tou perismou,” which translates literally exactly as given here. This refers to a coming “hour of trial,” and promises His own that they will be “kept out of,” not the trial, but the time of the trial. And it explicitly says that this coming “hour of trial” is coming “upon the whole earth.” again these words are an exact, literal, translation of the Greek words used here. If an “hour of trial” “is cmig upon the whole earth,” the only way they can be kept out of that “hour” is to r[hysically remove them from the earth, exxactly as explicitly stated in the words, “the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)

This is
Where is a 7 yr trib mentioned in Revelation 3:10?

Is is “the hour of trial” discussed above,

Where is a 3rd coming mentioned in Revelation 3:10?

This is an inane question which has zero bearing on the subject at hand. This is indeed explicitly stated in many scriptures, but not in this one.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
In post 74 you said:
Again, you have made no direct response to the Postrib rebuttal. I'm afraid your interpretation simply does not make sense or add up.

As I said above, what you posted was not a rebuttal, but an expression of your own personal opinion. To qualify as a rebuttal, an answer must address the points raised, and, one by one, explain why they are either incorrect or invalid. But instead of that, your post accidently revealed that you had not even botered to read the post to which you making what was nothing more than an emotional reaction.


Next, you again proved that you had not even bothered to read what I posted by saying:
The Greek word tēreō actually comes up twice in Revelation 3:10: “Because thou hast kept (tēreō) the word of my patience, I also will keep (tēreō) thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.”

The word means:

to attend to carefully, take care of,
to guard,
to keep, one in the state in which he is,
to observe,
to reserve: to undergo something,

The Greek word tēreō derives from the word tēreō which literally means ‘a watch or guard (from loss or injury, properly, by keeping the eye upon’.

These words, and their generally-accepted meanings, ooze preservation, care and protection. They fit in with the constant biblical theme of God looking after His people in the midst of a dark evil world. What is more, they fit perfectly with the consistent context and usage of the word elsewhere in the inspired text.

A basic analysis of the original Greek text shows us that the meaning and thrust literally reads: “Because thou hast kept or attended to or taken care of the word … I also will keep or attend to or take care of thee.”

Basically: “them that honour me I will honour” (1 Samuel 2:30).

Then, you said:
An examination of the usage of the Greek word tereo elsewhere in Scripture shows the error of the Pretrib interpretation. In fact, it forbids such a forced, bias and mistaken meaning.

The Pretribulation interpretation of the word as ‘to remove or take away’ is shown to be totally untenable. It butchers the literal meaning of the word. It gives it a connotation that cannot in any way fit with its usage elsewhere in Scripture. In fact, it forces it to mean the opposite to what it actually means. Applying the Pretrib meaning to other texts that use the same word ends up changing the whole meaning and sense of multiple Scriptures. In fact, many end up saying the opposite to what they are actually saying. Let us look at some examples.

Contrasts

To highlight the irrational and nonsensical nature of Pretrib hermeneutics. We need to apply their mistaken interpretation to other passages that carry the same Greek word.

Matthew 19:17 reads: “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, (tēreō) keep the commandments.”

Pretrib would have Matthew 19:17 read: “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, (tēreō) remove or take away the commandments.”

This would be absurd. It expresses the opposite meaning to what is intended.

John 8:51 reads: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man (tēreō) keep my saying, he shall never see death.”

Pretrib would have John 8:51 read: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man (tēreō) remove or take away my saying, he shall never see death.”

John 15:10-20 reads: “If ye (tēreō) keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have (tēreō) kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love … Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have (tēreō) kept my saying, they will (tēreō) keep yours also.”

Pretrib would have John 15:10-20 read: “If ye (tēreō) remove or take away my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have (tēreō) removed or taken away my Father's commandments, and abide in his love … Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have (tēreō) removed or taken away my saying, they will (tēreō) remove or take away yours also.”

Ephesians 4:3 reads: “Endeavouring to (tēreō) keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

Pretrib would have Ephesians 4:3 read: “Endeavouring (tēreō) to remove or take away the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

Philippians 4:7 reads: “And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall (tēreō) keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.”

Pretrib would have Philippians 4:7 read: “And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall (tēreō) remove or take away your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.”

2 Timothy 1:12 reads: “For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able (teros) to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.”

Pretrib would have 2 Timothy 1:12 read: “For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able (tēreō) to remove or take away that which I have committed unto him against that day.

Jude 1:24 reads: “Now unto him that is able (tēreō) to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.”

Pretrib would have Jude 1:24 read: “Now unto him that is able (tēreō) to remove or take away you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.”

In this inane argument, you assumed I had made an argument I never even made. This is a classical example of the saying “setting up straw horses so you can knock them down.”

I never so much as even implied that the Greek word “tereo” means, or even implies, as you falsely claimed we say, means ‘to remove or take away.’ Nor have I, in my well over fifty years of ministry, ever heard even one pre-tribber ever make such an ignorant claim. Anyone who had even the slightest familiarity with the Greek language would immediately recognize this an an expression of unbridled ignorance.

So again, both of your “rebuttals” involve three fatal flaws. In addition to revealing that your “rebuttals” were nothing but an emotional reaction to what you imagined I might have said, you repeatedly made statements that were factually incorrect, made false accusations, and made arguments that were totally inane, amounting to nothing but mere baseless quibbles.

So I must againask you to prayerfully consider what kind of spirit would have moved you to make such posts. It could not have been the Holy Spirit. For He never does such things as this.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: fwGod
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You opened Post 62 with a factually incorrect statement:


This is factually incorrect on two counts.

First, Pre-tribbers usually are quite ready to present the scriptural basis for their claims. But you simply deny that what they say is a scriptural basis. You usually do this in the basis of your faulty and illogical argument that the scriptures do not teach a docgtrine unless they state its entirety on a single short passage.

And second, if you had bothered to actually read what I posted, instead of simply reacting to it emotionally, you would know that I clearly demonstrated that this passage does indeed speak of the rapture. I did this by examining each Greek word used in the original. Both in its general meaning and in its specific meaning in relationship to the other Greek words used in the original text of this passage. You claim to have refuted what I said, but you did not even address most of the points I made.

Then, after quoting the entire messahe to the angel of the church in Philadelphia, you proceeded to present your interpretation of the meaning of this passage without even considering the clear locic I presented.

Thanks for responding and addressing the various points I make. I appreciate that. Once again, can you put my posts and points in quotes please? I am asking this to aid the reader who is watching on.

I addressing every point you made. I am not sure what was left untouched!

This reasoning would indeed be significant if your interpretation of the meanng of this passage were correct. But you did not even stop to consider whether or not your interpretation was ineed correct. You correctly pointed out that these words were addressed to a local church that existed nearly 2000 years ago. But you illogically reasoned that, therefore, this is the entire meanng and purpose of this passage. This is something that you have assumed, but for which you have not presented, and can not present, even one iota of proof.

If you accept that the promise made here in Revelation 3:10 related first-and-foremost to the church at Philadelphia 2000 years ago, and if it indeed experienced the promise Christ gave them (as they did), and if “the hour of trial” literally means '7-years trib' (as you allege) and if "I will keep you out of the hour of trial" means "the rapture” (as you allege), then you must believe that there are two 7-years tribs - one 2000 years ago and a second after your rapture, and also two raptures - one 2000 years ago and a second after when Jesus comes?

I asked: Where is the Church (as the collective body of Christ) mentioned here?

You replied:

“The church” is specifically stated in the word “you,” because this was addressed to the church. Except that this particular promise was only made to a part of the church, so the overall bodyis nt mentioned. Oterscriptures show that this applies to all real believers.

This unique promise was literally made to the church at Philadelphia, and also kept. It was particular to this local church and it was expressly related to their actual obedience. There is nowhere in the text that it is applied to the redeemed invisible Church of Jesus Christ.

I asked: Where is a rapture mentioned in Revelation 3:10?

You replied:

The rapture is found in the words “I will keep you out of the hour of trial.” Here, the words “Keep you from the hour” is a translation of the Greek word “se tereo ek tes horas tou perismou,” which translates literally exactly as given here. This refers to a coming “hour of trial,” and promises His own that they will be “kept out of,” not the trial, but the time of the trial. And it explicitly says that this coming “hour of trial” is coming “upon the whole earth.” again these words are an exact, literal, translation of the Greek words used here. If an “hour of trial” “is cmig upon the whole earth,” the only way they can be kept out of that “hour” is to r[hysically remove them from the earth, exxactly as explicitly stated in the words, “the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)

Jesus made a similar statement praying to His Father for His followers in John 17:15: “I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.”

Christ does not ask the Father to ‘take them out’ of the world with its existing tribulation, suffering and inherent evil, as the Pretrib argues, rather the opposite, but that by the power of His Spirit, He would “keep them from” the surrounding evil. This is the same thought that Christ is presenting in Revelation 3:10. Interestingly, a careful comparison between these two passages reveals the remarkable similarity in their import and word construction.

keep (tēreō) them from (ek) the evil” (John 17:15)
keep (tēreō) thee from (ek) the hour of temptation” (Revelation 3:10)

In fact, these are the only two places in Scripture that the Greek words tēreō and ek are found together. Not only do these two passages not teach an escape for the Church from this world, but Christ plainly and succinctly proclaims the contrary. Whatever “the hour of temptation” represented to the Philadelphian church they knew that they would be sheltered from its awful throes. There is no indication that they anticipated that blessing to involve being beamed out of the Roman Empire.

If Christ was talking about taking His elect away from the earth as Pretrib suggests then He would surely have said exactly that. Instead of promising to “keep them from the evil” He would rather have promised to “take them out of the world” (airo autos ek ho kosmos). But Christ actual says the opposite, praying: “I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.” The comparison between these two texts cannot be lightly dismissed as they were both penned by the same author.

I asked: Where is a 7 yr trib mentioned in Revelation 3:10?

You replied:

Is is “the hour of trial” discussed above,

Where? Again, you have no proof-text in Scripture for this theory of a 7 years trib after the rapture. Nothing!!! There is no mention of even 7 years. You force that into the sacred text. You should not be adding unto Scripture.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In post 74 you said:


As I said above, what you posted was not a rebuttal, but an expression of your own personal opinion. To qualify as a rebuttal, an answer must address the points raised, and, one by one, explain why they are either incorrect or invalid. But instead of that, your post accidently revealed that you had not even botered to read the post to which you making what was nothing more than an emotional reaction.


Next, you again proved that you had not even bothered to read what I posted by saying:

Then, you said:


In this inane argument, you assumed I had made an argument I never even made. This is a classical example of the saying “setting up straw horses so you can knock them down.”

I never so much as even implied that the Greek word “tereo” means, or even implies, as you falsely claimed we say, means ‘to remove or take away.’ Nor have I, in my well over fifty years of ministry, ever heard even one pre-tribber ever make such an ignorant claim. Anyone who had even the slightest familiarity with the Greek language would immediately recognize this an an expression of unbridled ignorance.

So again, both of your “rebuttals” involve three fatal flaws. In addition to revealing that your “rebuttals” were nothing but an emotional reaction to what you imagined I might have said, you repeatedly made statements that were factually incorrect, made false accusations, and made arguments that were totally inane, amounting to nothing but mere baseless quibbles.

So I must againask you to prayerfully consider what kind of spirit would have moved you to make such posts. It could not have been the Holy Spirit. For He never does such things as this.

The whole thrust of Revelation 3:10 is "protection in" rather than "extraction from." That is what the Greek words actually mean. Pretribbers have to impose an alien meaning on the Greek words in order to try to justify a doctrine that is not found in Holy Writ.

Again, let us look at what the Greek words actually mean. You have carefully sidestepped the salient post, despite several requests for you to directly address it. the evidence.

The Greek word
tēreō actually comes up twice in Revelation 3:10: “Because thou hast kept (tēreō) the word of my patience, I also will keep (tēreō) thee from (ek) the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.”

The word tēreō means:

to attend to carefully, take care of,
to guard,
to keep, one in the state in which he is,
to observe,
to reserve: to undergo something,


The Greek word tēreō derives from the word tēreō which literally means ‘a watch or guard (from loss or injury, properly, by keeping the eye upon’.

These words, and their generally-accepted meanings, ooze preservation, care and protection. They fit in with the constant biblical theme of God looking after His people in the midst of a dark evil world. What is more, they fit perfectly with the consistent context and usage of the word elsewhere in the inspired text.

The word ek means:


Thayer defines:

1) out of, from, by, away from

Strong's explains:

from, out of place, among

A basic analysis of the original Greek text shows us that the meaning and thrust literally reads: Because thou hast kept or attended to or taken care of the word I also will keep or attend to or take care of thee.”

Basically:
“them that honour me I will honour” (1 Samuel 2:30).

An examination of the usage of the Greek word tereo elsewhere in Scripture shows the error of the Pretrib interpretation. In fact, it forbids such a forced, bias and mistaken meaning.

The Pretribulation interpretation of the word as ‘to remove or take away’ is shown to be totally untenable. It butchers the literal meaning of the word. It gives it a connotation that cannot in any way fit with its usage elsewhere in Scripture. In fact, it forces it to mean the opposite to what it actually means. Applying the Pretrib meaning to other texts that use the same word ends up changing the whole meaning and sense of multiple Scriptures. In fact, many end up saying the opposite to what they are actually saying. Let us look at some examples.

Contrasts

To highlight the irrational and nonsensical nature of Pretrib hermeneutics. We need to apply their mistaken interpretation to other passages that carry the same Greek word.

Matthew 19:17 reads:
“Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, (tēreō) keep the commandments.”

Pretrib would have Matthew 19:17 read: “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, (tēreō) remove or take away the commandments.”

This would be absurd. It expresses the opposite meaning to what is intended.

John 8:51 reads:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man (tēreō) keep my saying, he shall never see death.”

Pretrib would have John 8:51 read: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man (tēreō) remove or take away my saying, he shall never see death.”

John 15:10-20 reads: “If ye (tēreō) keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have (tēreō) kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love … Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have (tēreō) kept my saying, they will (tēreō) keep yours also.”

Pretrib would have John 15:10-20 read: “If ye (tēreō) remove or take away my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have (tēreō) removed or taken away my Father's commandments, and abide in his love … Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have (tēreō) removed or taken away my saying, they will (tēreō) remove or take away yours also.”

Ephesians 4:3 reads: “Endeavouring to (tēreō) keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

Pretrib would have Ephesians 4:3 read: “Endeavouring (tēreō) to remove or take away the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

Philippians 4:7 reads: “And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall (tēreō) keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.”

Pretrib would have Philippians 4:7 read: “And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall (tēreō) remove or take away your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.”

2 Timothy 1:12 reads: “For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able (teros) to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.”

Pretrib would have 2 Timothy 1:12 read: “For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able (tēreō) to remove or take away that which I have committed unto him against that day.

Jude 1:24 reads: “Now unto him that is able (tēreō) to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.”

Pretrib would have Jude 1:24 read: “Now unto him that is able (tēreō) to remove or take away you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy.”
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0