Pretrib Discussion

[Biblewriter]

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."

Typos made by clumsy fingers are very different from basic errors. But if this was only a typo on your part, I apologize.

 

[Biblewriter]

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.

Of course I do not believe everything said by anyone. And I know of numerous errors made by Irenaeus, in particular. I refer to ancient teachers solely to disprove allegations that Dispensationalism is a relatively new doctrine.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Of course I do not believe everything said by anyone. And I know of numerous errors made by Irenaeus, in particular. I refer to ancient teachers solely to disprove allegations that Dispensationalism is a relatively new doctrine.

Great! That is good as many if not all have error in their doctrine. So what you find not erroneous I find erroneous and vise versa. For instance, I find his millennial view in error, though I agree with him when it comes to Israel and the Church. This is an important example. There is only one truth and we only know in part.
Be blessed.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Typos made by clumsy fingers are very different from basic errors.

Why do Pretribbers always resort to ad hominem when they cannot provide evidence for their belief system?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Great! That is good as many if not all have error in their doctrine. So what you find not erroneous I find erroneous and vise versa. For instance, I find his millennial view in error, though I agree with him when it comes to Israel and the Church. This is an important example. There is only one truth and we only know in part.
Be blessed.

Irenaeus was also the source of the purgatory doctrine.

Irenaeus attacked the Amillennialists who believed that the dead in Christ ascended immediately into the presence of God after their departure from this life. He censured those who opposed his belief that the righteous dead went direct to Hades to be tested upon death to await the second coming. He likened their views to those of the heretics:

Since … some who are reckoned among the orthodox go beyond the pre-arranged plan for the exaltation of the just, and are ignorant of the methods by which they are disciplined beforehand for incorruption, they thus entertain heretical opinions. For the heretics, despising the handiwork of God, and not admitting the salvation of their flesh, while they also treat the promise of God contemptuously, and pass beyond God altogether in the sentiments they form, affirm that immediately upon their death they shall pass above the heavens and the Demiurge, and go to the Mother (Achamoth) or to that Father whom they have feigned. Those persons, therefore, who disallow a resurrection affecting the whole man (universam reprobant resurrectionem), and as far as in them lies remove it from the midst [of the Christian scheme], how can they be wondered at, if again they know nothing as to the plan of the resurrection? (Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 31:1).

Irenaeus wasn’t suggesting that the orthodox Amillennial advocates in any way rejected the physical resurrection when Jesus comes, after all, to believe such would immediately nullify their orthodox credentials; it would also invalidate the distinction and comparison between the mainstream and the heretics. It would place them far outside the pale of orthodoxy. He simply disagreed with them dividing up the ascent of the inward man and the physical man in the whole process. He believed that soul and spirit would not be perfected until the physical is at the second advent. In his reasoning, he is out of step with most sound Premillennialists today of whatever shade.

Basically, Irenaeus rebuked his opponents for (1) rejecting “the pre-arranged plan for the exaltation of the just” – which he held to involve an intermediate state in Hades, and a millennial kingdom in-between the second coming and the new heavens and new earth. Also, he challenged (2) their “ignorant of the methods by which they are disciplined beforehand for incorruption,” essentially their denial of a two-tier method of refining the elect after death in Hades and in a future millennial kingdom, preparing them for eternity.

 

[Biblewriter]

To recap what I have posted in this thread:

I opened this thread by demonstrating why it is contrary to scripture to claim that a doctrine is not taught in scripture unless its entirety is contained in a single passage.

Than I gave the scriptural evidence for the doctrine of a rapture before the great tribulation. And when this evidence was challenged, I completely refuted the attempts to challenge it.

Because of the commonly made claim that this doctrine is relatively new, I also presented hard proof that it goes all the way back to the very beginnings of Christian teaching on Bible prophecy. This evidence was denied, but never actually addressed.

And I demonstrated that the attacks upon this doctrine are based upon a system of interpretation that denies that the Bible actually means what it says in its many prophecies that are explicitly stated in clear, plain language.

And finally, I demonstrated that the attacks against this doctrine (that have been made in this thread) show plain earmarks of a spirit that is not of God.

This has been in the form of demonstrating that most of these attacks have been nothing but inane quibbles that sounded good, but proved absolutely nothing. And of demonstrating that those attacks made here that did not fall within this classificatiion were mostly a combination of misinformation and disinformation, including false accusations. And of demonstrating that both of these two classifications of attacks were often phrased in language that appeared to have been carefully crafted with intent to deceive.

And sadly, the main attacker in this thread further demonstrated the spirit behind them by the arrogant attitude displayed in the posts.

 

[sovereigngrace]

To recap what I have posted in this thread:

I opened this thread by demonstrating why it is contrary to scripture to claim that a doctrine is not taught in scripture unless its entirety is contained in a single passage.

Than I gave the scriptural evidence for the doctrine of a rapture before the great tribulation. And when this evidence was challenged, I completely refuted the attempts to challenge it.

Because of the commonly made claim that this doctrine is relatively new, I also presented hard proof that it goes all the way back to the very beginnings of Christian teaching on Bible prophecy. This evidence was denied, but never actually addressed.

And I demonstrated that the attacks upon this doctrine are based upon a system of interpretation that denies that the Bible actually means what it says in its many prophecies that are explicitly stated in clear, plain language.

And finally, I demonstrated that the attacks against this doctrine (that have been made in this thread) show plain earmarks of a spirit that is not of God.

This has been in the form of demonstrating that most of these attacks have been nothing but inane quibbles that sounded good, but proved absolutely nothing. And of demonstrating that those attacks made here that did not fall within this classificatiion were mostly a combination of misinformation and disinformation, including false accusations. And of demonstrating that both of these two classifications of attacks were often phrased in language that appeared to have been carefully crafted with intent to deceive.

And sadly, the main attacker in this thread further demonstrated the spirit behind them by the arrogant attitude displayed in the posts.

 

[sovereigngrace]

To recap what I have posted in this thread:

I opened this thread by demonstrating why it is contrary to scripture to claim that a doctrine is not taught in scripture unless its entirety is contained in a single passage.

Than I gave the scriptural evidence for the doctrine of a rapture before the great tribulation. And when this evidence was challenged, I completely refuted the attempts to challenge it.

Because of the commonly made claim that this doctrine is relatively new, I also presented hard proof that it goes all the way back to the very beginnings of Christian teaching on Bible prophecy. This evidence was denied, but never actually addressed.

And I demonstrated that the attacks upon this doctrine are based upon a system of interpretation that denies that the Bible actually means what it says in its many prophecies that are explicitly stated in clear, plain language.

And finally, I demonstrated that the attacks against this doctrine (that have been made in this thread) show plain earmarks of a spirit that is not of God.

This has been in the form of demonstrating that most of these attacks have been nothing but inane quibbles that sounded good, but proved absolutely nothing. And of demonstrating that those attacks made here that did not fall within this classificatiion were mostly a combination of misinformation and disinformation, including false accusations. And of demonstrating that both of these two classifications of attacks were often phrased in language that appeared to have been carefully crafted with intent to deceive.

And sadly, the main attacker in this thread further demonstrated the spirit behind them by the arrogant attitude displayed in the posts.

I understand it must be frustrating when you are trying to defend a doctrine that enjoys no clear biblical support. How then do you effectively rebut the counter-position? You cannot! We have seen in our discussion that you do not have any solid proof-text whatsoever to bring to the table to prove Pretrib. You have admitted that!

When I asked you repeatedly: Can you show us Scripture that clearly describes (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a further Coming of Christ?

You admitted

no scriptire explicitly states this succession.

#I believe "scriptire" here means Scripture.

Fellow Pretribber Jerry Kelso conceded:

1. Nobody has said there is a literal plain statement that says there is a pre-trib rapture in Revelation.
There is also no literal plain statement that says there is a post-trib rapture in Revelation.
If one used a literal plain statement mid-Trib rapture could prove their point by Revelation 11:15.
That is why you have to understand proper hermeneutics.

I then replied:

"Ok, then. I will make it easier for you. Let me (reluctantly) take one of the crucial aspects of Pretrib out ("Christ's 3rd coming to the earth"), even though it is a key element of the Pretribulation paradigm. I will also take the word “immediately” out so that you have no excuse.

Please give us a rapture passage that shows a literal seven-year tribulation following it?"

You then admitted what many of us former Pretribbers have been arguing for years:

No scripture puts these two events together in a single passage

I then asked: "Do you want me to reduce this question to simply a rapture of the Church??? Then we can all agree with that.

This doctrine is not in the sacred pages. Why not admit it? It is only to be found in the Left Behind novels."

You then replied:

Nobody has said there is a literal plain statement that says there is a pre-trib rapture in Revelation.

You made the Postrib case for me. That should have been the end of the debate. After all, Pretrib is bereft on any scriptural support.

Your last "Hail Mary" was Revelation 3:10. When I rebutted your teaching (in posts #62, #74 and #120), you had nothing to say but complain about a simple typo in my post. That was rich allowing for the countless ones found in your own writings. You are yet to address #62, #74 and #120 and acknowledge how there is no rapture in Revelation 3:10, or a 7-years trib, or a 3rd coming.

The unique promise made by Christ in Revelation 3:10 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.

When Scripture didn't work you then resorted to the early church fathers to somehow help your cause. But you were unable to find one single ECF that taught (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a further Coming of Christ. Not one quote from Irenaeus or Victorinus and Hippolytus states that. They were all Postrib Chiliasts.

You then sheepishly conceded:

there is very little uniformity between the early and late ancient writers.

When all this did not work you had to try and discredit the messenger (namely myself) by throwing out serious spiritual slurs and ad hominem against me, as you did in your parting shots.

And why did I deserve these serious charges from you?

One of the reasons is that most of your arguments are so trivial that they do not even deserve an answer.

Also:

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.

Also:

the attacks against this doctrine (that have been made in this thread) show plain earmarks of a spirit that is not of God.

And what "truth" and what "doctrine" was I attacking? The supposed truth/doctrine that you previously admitted wasn't in the Bible. Seriously??? The Spirit of truth cannot be divorced from the Word of truth.

The reality is: this 2-future-comings theory was invented by Emmanuel Lacunza (or Manuel de Lacunza y Diaz), a Chilean theologian of Spanish descent (born in Santiago, Chile, July 19, 1731, and died at Imola, Italy, June 17, 1801). He became a member of the Jesuit order in 1747 at the age of 16.

Lacunza wrote this book under the assumed name of Rabbi Ben-Ezra as a "converted Jew". The book was finished in 1790, and then circulated in manuscript form before it was published at Cadiz, Spain, in 1812. This was during the time of Cortez in Spain, and after Cortez the book was suppressed, and as much as possible withdrawn from circulation. Lacunza died in June 1801, before the book was ever published in book form.

Rev. Edward Irving, a Presbyter of the Church of Scotland, who had been the assistant to Dr. Chalmers in Glasgow, translated this book of Lacunza from the Spanish in 1826, and it was published in English by L.B. Seely and Son, Fleet Street, London, in 1827.

This is the origin of Pretrib. It is not in the Bible, as your avoidance has proved. You have zero biblical evidence, only speculations and theories.

Conclusion

I understand it is not easy when you realize that what you have believed, taught and wrote about is actually false and non-biblical. But Scripture overrides what we were all taught on Pretrib. The reason why Pretrib is crumbling throughout the world, and why many of us have abandoned it, and now passionately oppose it, is because unlike 30 years ago, we are allowed to question what we believe. This generation is allowed to ask who?, what?, why?, when? where? Christians are changing, preachers are changing, churches are changing, Bible colleges are changing. Pretrib is on the ropes. And this thread reveals the reason why. Hopefully it will not be long before we give this doctrine a decent burial. It is not scriptural!

The burden of proof is with you! The first principle of evidence is: "he who alleges must prove." It is you that claims that there will be (1) a rapture of the Church, (2) immediately followed by a literal seven-year tribulation, (3) immediately followed by a further Coming of Christ. You must show it! You haven't and cannot. You admit that!

Until you can prove this theory (which you never will), the rest of us can reject it as an extra-biblical man-made invention.

 

[Biblewriter]

I understand it must be frustrating when you are trying to defend a doctrine that enjoys no clear biblical support. How then do you effectively rebut the counter-position? You cannot!

I have already thoroughly rebutted your cavils. I am not going to continue a childish argument with a man that will not submit to scripture.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I have already thoroughly rebutted your cavils. I am not going to continue a childish argument with a man that will not submit to scripture.

I refer you back to my last post. I rest my case!

 

[Terral]

Hi Biblewriter:

Thank you for starting this Pre-Trib discussion. You wrote:

As the following post came up in another thread which is already overly long, and as it has very little connection to the subject of that thread, which was falsely titled "The Fatal Flaw in Dispensationalism," I am re-posting it here as the OP for a new thread.

Perhaps a better idea would have been to present your views and interpretations of the Scriptures regarding the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Theory rather than a trying to paint a picture of deliberations with sovereigngrace on another thread. After all, your duty to the topic is to provide explanations and Scriptural support for your interpretations rather than offering counterarguments and rebuttals on perceived misinterpretations and misunderstandings of someone else that can be quite tedious at best. Please allow me to present a counterargument to the entire Pre-Tribulation Rapture Theory that is dead wrong like the Mid-Tribulation Rapture Theory and the Post-Tribulation Rapture Theory (academia.edu) that I imagine we can accept as the Big Three Rapture Explanations.

Credit Terral Croft, The Mystery Explained, Nov. 2017, Page 309

This is my Prophecy / Mystery Timeline showing how the "Law and the Prophets" were dispensed by Moses to Israel in the OT (on left in golden-yellow), as the first major "dispensation" (#3622 = "management of a household"). Then we see John the Baptist, Christ and the Twelve preaching the "Gospel of the Kingdom" (Matt. 4:23, 9:35, etc. = #1 in OP), until Israel commits the "transgression" (Rom. 11:11) and Peter's Kingdom "Bride" Church (#1 in OP) is "cut off" and God switches dispensational gears, by sending Paul to build the Gentile-dominant "Body of Christ" (Church #2) preaching the "Gospel of the Grace of God" (Gospel #2). Note carefully that the big red section in the middle of the diagram that is between the Two Veils is entitled "The Dispensation of God's Grace" (Ephesians 3:2] that put the "Kingdom Dispensation" on the back burner. Note how my illustration of the "Rapture (Body)" takes place to "start" the upcoming Day of the Lord, while the "Seven Years (Tribulation)" takes place at the "end of the age" on the far right side of the diagram. Jesus Christ connects the dots between the "Great Tribulation" and the "end of the age" in Matthew 24:3-21.

"As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” Matt. 24:3. "Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name." Matt. 24:9. "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come." Matt. 24:14. "For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will." Matt. 24:3, 9, 14, 21.

Jesus Christ in answering the Disciples' "end of the age" questions makes connections to the "great tribulation" coming after the "gospel of the kingdom" goes to the whole world and only then the end will come. Guess what? We do not even preach the "gospel of the kingdom" today that has saved nobody for almost 2000 years! Here is a second diagram that might help:

Credit Terral Croft, The Mystery Explained, Nov. 2017, Page 338

Stand with the OT Prophets on the left in the Old Testament years to realize Daniel, Zechariah, Ezekiel, etc. see very well into the upcoming "Day of the Lord" illustrated in blue on the right side of the diagram where you see the "Great Tribulation" highlighted in Pink. The simple fact (for me) is that most professing Bible prophecy experts is that they transform the Day of the Lord into an event rather than correctly interpreting the Lord's Day as a 1000 years:

"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day." 2Peter 3:8.

The Day of the Lord is a "period" that contains an indeterminable number of years, but explained by an understanding of what is written in Acts 3:19-26 that includes:

1. Times of refreshing coming from the presence of the Lord (Matt. 24:29-31).
2. Heaven holding Jesus the Christ by the hand "until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time." Acts 3:21.
3. Raising of Elijah "a prophet" (Acts 3:22) who will "restore all things" (Matt. 17:10-11) that includes the Kingdom to Israel, the Temple, the Kingdom Church via the "Gospel of the Kingdom" (Matt. 24:14).

Our mystery translation to immortality (1Cor. 15:51-55) and being "caught up" (1Thes. 4:15-17) to meet the Lord in the air happens to "start" the upcoming Day of the Lord, while the Great Tribulation and everything taking place in Matthew 24 and Revelation take place at the "end of the age" more than 1000 years later. In other words, Jesus Christ and the OT prophets are all describing how the Day of the Lord "ends," while the Apostle Paul is the only Bible writer describing how the Day of the Lord "comes" or begins. Paul writes:

"Now as to the times and the epochs [see Acts 1:7-8], brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night." 1Thes. 5:1-2.

Again, only Paul can write about how the Day of the Lord "will come" (start), while Daniel, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, etc. all describe how the same 1000-years Day of the Lord "ends." Therefore, there is no substance whatsoever to the Pre-Tribulation, Mid-Trib, nor Post-Trib Rapture Theories, unless the Pre-Tribulation Rapture takes place more than 1000 years "before" the Great Tribulation. The evidence from my investigations in this topic say that the Day of the Lord will extend more than 3600 years (between Black Star crossing events), but that is the topic of another discussion.

Blessings,

Terral

 

[Biblewriter]

It looks like it would take about twenty large volumes to even begin to explain how you imagine you found all of this in the Bible.

 

[Terral]

Hi Biblewriter:

Thank you for writing. You wrote:

It looks like it would take about twenty large volumes to even begin to explain how you imagine you found all of this in the Bible.

LoL! You got a big belly laugh out of me on that one. Perhaps a good idea would be more reading and a little less Bible writing; the too-full glass thing. The three primary rapture theories are all wrong, IMHO, as our gathering to the Lord takes place to start the Day of the Lord, while the Great Tribulation takes place about 3600 years later near the end of the age. Denominationalism provides thousands of different denominations and that many interpretations of one truth, until the truth comes along and people have been deliberating everything else and cannot see the forest for the trees; or so it seems.

Blessings,

Terral

 

[Tra Phull]

What an incredible thread to read through all at once.

I remember several years ago, reading about a phone call between Pre-Tribbers Grant Jeffrees and Thomas Ice about the "discovery" of Pseudo-Ephraim.

The fact that they went so ga-ga about it struck me.

Now it seems there is a real PUSH on by some to "find" or "discover" anything in ECF WRITINGS that speak of a PreTrib coming.

Must have been rare.

I dropped PreTrib because I just could not find any justification for a "gap" in the 70 weeks - the whole bit about "the prophetic clock stopped" - I could find no support in that, other time periods like Israel in Egypt - it ran concurrently, I now feel 70 weeks did also, ending with stoning of Stephen. I do not look for a "seven year trib" at all.

 

[Tra Phull]

It was mentioned that there would be ECF references to a "gap" - I must have missed them.

LaCunza's book was nowhere near PreTrib as we know it now. Just another attack on "origin of PreTrib" - to say it came from a Jesuit...
Or attribute it to a demon-possessed teenage girl, but Margaret Macdonald' s vision was NOT PreTrib, nor was she demon-possessed...
I am no longer PreTrib, but still cringe to see its "origins" lied about.

 

[Jack Terrence]

The future seven years is clearly presented in Daniel 9.

It was future from Daniel's time. It is not future from our time. The tribulation is past (Revelation 1:9).

 

[Tra Phull]

Where are ECF references to a GAP in the 70 weeks?

 

[Tra Phull]

Guess there ain't none.

 

[Biblewriter]

Guess there ain't none.

Yes, both the very oldest surviving Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of any significant length) and the very oldest surviving Christian commentary on scripture clearly stated it. I reviewed both of these in my book titled “Ancient Dispensational Truth,” which is available from Amazon.com .

 

[Tra Phull]

...