Problems Within Dispensationalism

[BABerean2]

Who actually wrote the "pseudo-Ephraem" document, or even if it was a compendium, is TOTALLY immaterial.

If it was written by a person indwelled by a demon from hell, many of us would disagree with your conclusion above.

Some human beings are working for Satan, as revealed by those who erected a statue of Baphomet in the U.S. during the last few years.


For obvious reasons, many of those promoting modern Dispensational Theology have done their best to hide the recent origin of the doctrine by claiming it was promoted by others during the past.

In the YouTube video below former Dispensationalist Jerry Johnson looks at the man who brought the Two Peoples of God doctrine to the U.S. about the time of the Civil War.

Against Dispensationalism, Exposing the Founder, John Nelson Darby

PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418


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


.

 

[Biblewriter]

If it was written by a person indwelled by a demon from hell, many of us would disagree with your conclusion above.

Some human beings are working for Satan, as revealed by those who erected a statue of Baphomet in the U.S. during the last few years.


For obvious reasons, many of those promoting modern Dispensational Theology have done their best to hide the recent origin of the doctrine by claiming it was promoted by others during the past.

In the YouTube video below former Dispensationalist Jerry Johnson looks at the man who brought the Two Peoples of God doctrine to the U.S. about the time of the Civil War.

Against Dispensationalism, Exposing the Founder, John Nelson Darby

PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418


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


.

What we have done has been to present the HARD PROOF that what you are saying is a BLATANT LIE.

And as a side note, no, you have NOT read my final document. All you have read was some of my initial observations, which were made online. You made some ineffective attempts to counter these initial observations. And in my final document, I PROVED that ALL of your arguments were erroneous.

 

[BABerean2]

What we have done has been to present the HARD PROOF that what you are saying is a BLATANT LIE.

At one time Benjamin Newton and John Darby worked together in the early Plymouth Brethren movement. After Darby split the scripture into that for the Church and that for Israel, Newton would not accept Darby's new doctrine. Darby then launched a person attack on Newton which split the group.
Darby's spirit of attack is alive and well during the present time, as revealed by the comment above.

Anyone who has to defend their doctrine through the condemnation of others has revealed the doctrine for what it really is.

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


PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418


Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/rapture_23.pdf


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


.

 

[Biblewriter]

At one time Benjamin Newton and John Darby worked together in the early Plymouth Brethren movement. After Darby split the scripture into that for the Church and that for Israel, Newton would not accept Darby's new doctrine. Darby then launched a person attack on Newton which split the group.
Darby's spirit of attack is alive and well during the present time, as revealed by the comment above.

Anyone who has to defend their doctrine through the condemnation of others has revealed the doctrine for what it really is.

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


PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418


Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/rapture_23.pdf


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


.

You said, "Anyone who has to defend their doctrine through the condemnation of others has revealed the doctrine for what it really is."

This is indeed correct. And THAT is EXACTLY what YOU have been doing. I have exposed the HARD FACT that YOUR accusations are a FLAT OUT LIE.

AND, I have exposed the HARD FACT that YOU have SEEN the HARD PROOF that your accusations are not true, yet you KEEP making them.

 

[Biblewriter]

Here is the HARD PROOF:


The very oldest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy of any significant length that has survived to our day is the last twelve chapters of “Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus. (There were older such commentaries, but all of them were either only short comments in articles about other subjects, or have been lost.) This is thought to have been published between the years 186 and 188 A.D., and says:

“Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons ‘as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance—in fact, as nothing;’ so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, ‘There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.’ For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.” (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, Book V, chapter 29, paragraph 1.)

Here we find a clear teaching of a pre-tribulation rapture. But Irenaeus also wrote:

“For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule;” (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, Book V, chapter 35, paragraph 1.)

Here we see this same ancient writer just as explicitly saying that “the resurrection of the just” “takes place after the coming of Antichrist.” On the surface, this would seem to flatly contradict his other statement. But this is not the case. First, we need to notice that Irenaeus did not say that “the resurrection of the just” takes place after the reign of Antichrist. He only said it “takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule.” To see the significance of this, we need to consider another statement from this same ancient document:

“But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom.” (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, Book V, chapter 30, paragraph 4.)

Here we find first, a distinct statement that Antichrist would reign for three years and six months. But also a distinct statement that this three years and six months would be after “this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world.” Thus we see that Irenaeus placing “the resurrection of the just” “after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule,” was not saying the rapture would be after the three and a half year reign of Antichrist. Rather, he placed the rapture at the beginning of that three and a half year reign. That is, he was saying that the time of “tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be” was the three and a half year reign of Antichrist.

Irenaeus very clearly put the church in at least the first part of the time of Antichrist, as we can see in the following:

“‘And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and give their strength and power to the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because He is the Lord of lords and the King of kings.’ It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord.” (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, Book V, chapter 26, paragraph 1.)

This is the only place Irenaeus used the word “church” in regard to these events, other than the place where he explicitly said “the Church shall be suddenly caught up” before the “tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.” But he used the word “we,” which certainly seems to have the same meaning, here:

“But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is: the name, however, is suppressed, because it is not worthy of being proclaimed by the Holy Spirit.” (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, Book V, chapter 26, paragraph 1.)

These last two statements make it very clear that Irenaeus placed the rapture at least after “the coming of Antichrist.” We have already noticed that in statements about events before the three and a half year reign of Antichrist, he used the words “the church” and “we.” But in his statements about persecutions during the three and a half year reign of Antichrist, he changed this terminology. We remember that in his statement about the church being “suddenly caught up,” he called the tribulation “the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.” He used the term “the righteous” again when he spoke of the faithful in that time in this statement:

“For that image which was set up by Nebuchadnezzar had indeed a height of sixty cubits, while the breadth was six cubits; on account of which Ananias, Azarias, and Misaël, when they did not worship it, were cast into a furnace of fire, pointing out prophetically, by what happened to them, the wrath against the righteous which shall arise towards the [time of the] end. For that image, taken as a whole, was a prefiguring of this man’s coming, decreeing that he should undoubtedly himself alone be worshipped by all men.” (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, Book V, chapter 29, paragraph 2.)

We remember that Irenaeus used this same term in speaking of the beginning of the kingdom, saying, “bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom.” He also used a second term for these faithful ones during that time, calling them “saints” in the following statements:

“Daniel too, looking forward to the end of the last kingdom, i.e., the ten last kings, amongst whom the kingdom of those men shall be partitioned, and upon whom the son of perdition shall come, declares that ten horns shall spring from the beast, and that another little horn shall arise in the midst of them, and that three of the former shall be rooted up before his face. He says: ‘And, behold, eyes were in this horn as the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things, and his look was more stout than his fellows. I was looking, and this horn made war against the saints, and prevailed against them, until the Ancient of days came and gave judgment to the saints of the most high God, and the time came, and the saints obtained the kingdom.’ Then, further on, in the interpretation of the vision, there was said to him: ‘The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall excel all other kingdoms, and devour the whole earth, and tread it down, and cut it in pieces. And its ten horns are ten kings which shall arise; and after them shall arise another, who shall surpass in evil deeds all that were before him, and shall overthrow three kings; and he shall speak words against the most high God, and wear out the saints of the most high God, and shall purpose to change times and laws; and [everything] shall be given into his hand until a time of times and a half time,’ that is, for three years and six months, during which time, when he comes, he shall reign over the earth.” (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, Book V, chapter 25, paragraph 3.)

“And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: ‘And in the midst of the week,’ he says, ‘the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.’ Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.” (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, Book V, chapter 25, paragraph 4.)

We need to notice that both of these statements are about the three and a half year reign of Antichrist, and thus speak of a time after Irenaeus placed the “resurrection of the just.” And in these statements, he changed the words “the church,” or “we,” to “the saints.”

(continued)

 

[BABerean2]

You said, "Anyone who has to defend their doctrine through the condemnation of others has revealed the doctrine for what it really is."

This is indeed correct. And THAT is EXACTLY what YOU have been doing. I have exposed the HARD FACT that YOUR accusations are a FLAT OUT LIE.

AND, I have exposed the HARD FACT that YOU have SEEN the HARD PROOF that your accusations are not true, yet you KEEP making them.

Anyone who claims to be the greatest living apologist of John Nelson Darby is not an unbiased witness.

Writing text in all capital letters does not bear witness to the truth.

The link below written by a Brethren historian reveals the unbiased history of John Darby's doctrine.


PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418


.

 

[Biblewriter]

HARD PROOF continued from previous post:


Why are the exact words Irenaeus used significant? Because a doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture requires words like “the church” or “we” in statements about the godly during events up to and at the moment when “the Church shall be suddenly caught up.” But when speaking of times after this, that is, after the rapture, the proper (and scriptural) terms for godly people are “the righteous” or “saints.” Again, the doctrine requires a different term for those who are resurrected at the time of the rapture, for that resurrection includes Old Testament believers who were thus not members of the church. And this is exactly what Irenaeus did, calling the resurrection by its scriptural name of “the resurrection of the just.”

Now some will want to discount any claim that Irenaeus was intentionally using well selected terminology in these statements. But he used the same precision in his comments about recognizing the Antichrist when he appeared. For, as we have already noticed, when he was speaking of true believers he said “But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him.” But when he was speaking of men who might be deceived by the Antichrist, he stuck strictly with the scriptural terminology by referring to them as “those,” “these,” “they,” and “them,” as we see in the following statements:

“Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of Antichrist. For if these men assume one [number], when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him, as supposing him not to be the expected one, who must be guarded against.” (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, Book V, chapter 30, end of paragraph 1)

“These men, therefore, ought to learn [what really is the state of the case], and go back to the true number of the name, that they be not reckoned among false prophets. But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation.” (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, Book V, chapter 30, beginning of paragraph 2.)

Thus we see that Irenaeus used precise terminology that clearly distinguished between these two groups. He again used the scriptural words “those,” along with “ye” and “he,” rather than his own words, when speaking of the need for the inhabitants of the land of Judea to flee when they see the abomination of desolation.

“But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be.” (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, Book V, chapter 25, paragraph 2.)

Finally, Irenaeus made one more statement that touches this matter, saying:

“Has the Word come for the ruin and for the resurrection of many? For the ruin, certainly, of those who do not believe Him, to whom also He has threatened a greater damnation in the judgment-day than that of Sodom and Gomorrah; but for the resurrection of believers, and those who do the will of His Father in heaven.” (Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, Book V, chapter 27, paragraph 1.)

In this passage Irenaeus implies a simultaneous judgment-day for unbelievers and resurrection of believers. Some will assume that this proves he was not saying that the rapture will be before the tribulation. But this is in full accord with the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture. For there will be people who turn to God during the time of the tribulation, and they will be persecuted and slain for their faith. These will be resurrected at approximately the same time as when Christ comes in power and glory to judge the world. (The scriptures do not say their resurrection happens when He comes. But Revelation 20:4 says “they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” So we know that their resurrection takes place at least at approximately the same time as He comes.

So now we are faced with two choices. We can either assume that Irenaeus was exceedingly careless as to his wording, and simply did not mean what he said. Or we can assume that the precision of his wording was not a mere coincidence, but that he chose his exact words carefully and with intent. In that case, we are forced to conclude that Irenaeus meant exactly what he said when he wrote:

And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, ‘There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.’

 

[BABerean2]

And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, ‘There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.’

Irenaeus was correct, based on the passage below.

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
Rev 11:16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,
Rev 11:17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
Rev 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.


However, it in no way proves Irenaeus was promoting the pretrib doctrine.

Rev 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

.

 

[Clare73]

What we have done has been to present the HARD PROOF that what you are saying is a BLATANT LIE.

Personal interpretation of prophetic riddles (Numbers 12:8) which are subject to more than one interpretation, is not hard proof of anything.

The only hard proof of the truth of dispensationalism is agreement with authoritative NT teaching, which dispensationalism does not enjoy.

The basic problem with dispensationalism, and which is the cause of all its other problems, is that it is contra-NT authoritative teaching.

It's not any more complicated than that.

 

[Biblewriter]

Personal intepretation of prophetic riddles (Numbers 12:8) which are subject to more than one interpretation, is not hard proof of anything.

The only hard proof of the truth of dispensationaliam is agreement with authoritative NT teaching, which dispensationalsim does not enjoy.

The point of discussion at the moment is not whether or not Dispensationalism is correct, but whether or not it was a "new" doctrine in the 1800s.

What I PROVED, was not that the early Christians were correct in their doctrines, but that they did, in actual fact, teach a "rapture" before "the tribulation." What I posted was from pages 90 to 97 of my book, "Ancient Dispensational Truth."

Irenaeus was only one of three truly ancient writers that we know about, who taught this doctrine. How many others taught it, we can only guess. All we know, of a certainty, is that the works of these three writers survived the purges made by the monks of the dark ages. It is a well documented fact that these monks systematically purged the church libraries of documents that they did not agree with.

Other things I clearly PROVED in my book were that the most ancient Christian writers on Bible prophecy whose works have been preserved, EXPLICITLY taught that the seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy would not be fulfilled until the end times, and that Bible prophecy should be interpreted literally.

Whether or not these doctrines are correct is a different question, for a different debate. The point here is the HARD PROOF that these doctrines were NOT, as has been FALSELY alleged, "new" doctrines in the 1800s.

 

[BABerean2]

The point of discussion at the moment is not whether or not Dispensationalism is correct, but whether or not it was a "new" doctrine in the 1800s.

What I PROVED, was not that the early Christians were correct in their doctrines, but that they did, in actual fact, teach a "rapture" before "the tribulation." What I posted was from pages 90 to 97 of my book, "Ancient Dispensational Truth."

Irenaeus was only one of three truly ancient writers that we know about, who taught this doctrine. How many others taught it, we can only guess. All we know, of a certainty, is that the works of these three writers survived the purges made by the monks of the dark ages. It is a well documented fact that these monks systematically purged the church libraries of documents that they did not agree with.

Other things I clearly PROVED in my book were that the most ancient Christian writers on Bible prophecy whose works have been preserved, EXPLICITLY taught that the seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy would not be fulfilled until the end times, and that Bible prophecy should be interpreted literally.

Whether or not these doctrines are correct is a different question, for a different debate. The point here is the HARD PROOF that these doctrines were NOT, as has been FALSELY alleged, "new" doctrines in the 1800s.

Why did it take over 1800 years to find the pretrib removal of the Church in the writings of Irenaeus?

Do you have a reading ability which the thousands of Bible scholars who came before you did not have?

Or, are you looking at the text through glasses handed down to you which originally belonged to John Nelson Darby?

The article below seems to indicate author Grant Jeffrey used the same glasses.


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

.

 

[Clare73]

The point of discussion at the moment is not whether or not Dispensationalism is correct, but whether or not it was a "new" doctrine in the 1800s.

What I PROVED, was not that the early Christians were correct in their doctrines, but that they did, in actual fact, teach a "rapture" before "the tribulation."

Indeed, they did. . .in Thessalonica, and
Paul had to straighten them out in 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8. . .as did
Peter in 1 Peter 1:5, 1 Peter 1:13 and Acts 3:2--where he states that Jesus must "remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything," in the new creation. . .and as does the
writer of Hebrews in Hebbrew 9:27-28 where there will be no appearing of Jesus prior to his coming for judgment, because Christ appears once to atone and once to judge, and not in between.
For just as men die once and then face judgment, so Christ appears once to die and once for judgment.

So the point is, it was not a doctrine of the church for 2,000 years.

 

[Clare73]

I'll take this incrementally.

I completely agree but before get to far down this avenue we should ALL first acknowledge something many Dispensationalists may not know:
The entire rest of Christendom does NOT view Israel as eschatologically relevant.

Nor do I.

There are five main eschatologies: Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, Idealism, and Dispensational Premillennialism, and only DPism considers Israel or its temple relevant. Everyone else says no to that premise. This view was invented in the mid-1800s by John Darby.

Does something new automatically mean it is wrong? No! That is not my argument. The problem lies in this simple undeniable fact: if Dispensational Premillennialism is correct then all the rest of Christendom is wrong and has been wrong for 20 centuries going all the way back to the fledgling days of the ekklesia in the NT era. Can't be had both ways.

So... getting back to what you've said, if that view of Israel and the separation of Church and Israel is correct then this is also a very different doctrine of the Church than has ever been taught and it is one that leads to the unavoidable conclusion: if they are correct then everyone else in the entire history of the Church has been wrong. Our doctrine of Christ and the Church are wrong and they've always been wrong. John Darby has set us straight.

That's a problem.

 

[Biblewriter]

Why did it take over 1800 years to find the pretrib removal of the Church in the writings of Irenaeus?

Do you have a reading ability which the thousands of Bible scholars who came before you did not have?

Or, are you looking at the text through glasses handed down to you which originally belonged to John Nelson Darby?

The article below seems to indicate author Grant Jeffrey used the same glasses.


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

.

It did NOT take 1800 years to find it. IT WAS THERE, ALL ALONG. but no one was interested in that fact until people began to LIE and say it was never taught before 1800. THEN, we began to expose that OUTRIGHT LIE.

But as far as I know, I am the first person to actually analyze the change in the pronouns used by Irenaeus, THAT change, along with the INDISPUTABLE FACT that it came AT THE POINT IN HIS SCENARIO where he located the resurrection, is the HARD PROOF that he ACTUALLY meant what he said, that "when the church is suddenly caught up...[then] there shall be great tribulation."

 

[Biblewriter]

Indeed, they did. . .in Thessalonica, and
Paul had to straighten them out in 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8. . .as did
Peter in 1 Peter 1:5, 1 Peter 1:13 and Acts 3:2--where he states that Jesus must "remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything," in the new creation. . .and as does the
writer of Hebrews in Hebbrew 9:27-28 where there will be no appearing of Jesus prior to his coming for judgment, because Christ appears once to atone and once to judge, and not in between.
For just as men die once and then face judgment, so Christ appears once to die and once for judgment.

So the point is, it was not a doctrine of the church for 2,000 years.

I will be glad to debate THAT with you in another thread.

 

[BABerean2]

It did NOT take 1800 years to find it. IT WAS THERE, ALL ALONG. but no one was interested in that fact until people began to LIE and say it was never taught before 1800. THEN, we began to expose that OUTRIGHT LIE.

But as far as I know, I am the first person to actually analyze the change in the pronouns used by Irenaeus, THAT change, along with the INDISPUTABLE FACT that it came AT THE POINT IN HIS SCENARIO where he located the resurrection, is the HARD PROOF that he ACTUALLY meant what he said, that "when the church is suddenly caught up...[then] there shall be great tribulation."

The word "tribulation" in the text, without the Dispensational glasses.


Mat_13:21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

Mat_24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Mat_24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Mar_13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

Joh_16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Act_14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

Rom_2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

Rom_5:3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

Rom_8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

Rom_12:12 Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer;

2Co_1:4 Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God.

2Co_7:4 Great is my boldness of speech toward you, great is my glorying of you: I am filled with comfort, I am exceeding joyful in all our tribulation.

1. 1Th_3:4 For verily, when we were with you, we told you before that we should suffer tribulation; even as it came to pass, and ye know.

Rev_1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rev_2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Rev_2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.


.

 

[Clare73]

I will be glad to debate THAT with you in another thread.

Debate Scripture?

 

[Biblewriter]

The entire rest of Christendom does NOT view Israel as eschatologically relevant. There are five main eschatologies: Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, Idealism, and Dispensational Premillennialism, and only DPism considers Israel or its temple relevant. Everyone else says no to that premise. This view was invented in the mid-1800s by John Darby.

I have already conclusively proved that your last statement quoted here is completely incorrect.

But aside from that, whether "the rest of Christendom" agrees or does not agree with a doctrine is not a valid test of a doctrine. The ONLY valid test is whether or not it agrees with scripture. and Dispensartionalism is the ONLY system of interpretation that is based on ACTUALLY BELIEVING the explicitly stated promises that God UNCONDITIONALLY made in the Bible.

 

[Biblewriter]

Debate Scripture?

debate your wresting of what the scriptures ACTUALLY say.

 

[Clare73]

debate your wresting of what the scriptures ACTUALLY say.

I can cut to the bottom line for you.

If the Thessalonians continued to think after their first letter from Paul that the rapture had already occurred, then they thought Paul missed it too! That is beyond credibility.
So Paul was not writing in 2 Thessalonians to correct their view that the rapture had occurred, but to correct their view that the rapture was imminent, for he presented certain events which had to occur before the rapture, and which had not occurred, so Paul told them to get back to work instead of idly waiting for an imminent coming rapture.