Featured Why is the Pre-Tribulation rapture popular and does it have a future?...

The above is not, in any way, historically true. Actually the pre-mill view stood without constest for just over 250 after Christ's ascention, at which point we have record of only 4 people (writings) who didn't agree with it and even then it was never brought forth in Church councils or shown as a division in the CHurch as of yet.

In fact, it was Augustine who became the poster boy for the new church/state view. We also note that it was only after christianity became a state mandated religion (the early footing of the Roman Catholic Church) do we find the Chilianist view being forced out of the churches, in favor of replacement theology (which later evolved into a different view - Covenant theology).

For me, it is strange when people say the apostles held to something else. Personally, I always wonder why 'their' disciples never taught anything else (which we would see in their disciples teaching as well), and those churches they set up all over didn't hold to any other views that can be noted historically. It wasn't until a couple hundred years later 'other' views began to be noted to stand in opposition to said view.

Here are some other Church Historians who are on record as stating the Pre-mil view was not only apart of the early church but also the dominant orthodox view of it. Some of the authors are even Amil, Post-mil believers who are even against the Premil view

Common themes of the Premil view are as follows (and seen above):
1. The anti-christ (a person) would both arise and reign
2. Christ's return physically to earth and the overthrow of the anti-christ.
3. Christ establishing His physical Kingdom on the earth.
4. He would reign from Jerusalem both over and with His saints of all ages.
5. His reign would last a literal 1000 years.
6. There were 2 distinct resurrections. That of the saints before the 1000 year reign and the general - those who would be raised up for Judgment.
7. Pre-mils did distinquish between Israel and Church.

Regarding #7:
The fact that the Jews (Israel) are brought back to Jerusalem for and during the reign of Christ and His saints is indictive of this.
One last point to remember: The Dispy view and Covenant Theology are close in age as they both, as you say, new kids on the block

 

A segment from from Church Historian Philip Schaff

 

Thus Brother Icon, based on the Historic Pre-mil view (of which MarArthur is) the 7 points I noted earlier:
Common themes of the Premil view are as follows (and seen above):

These above, make up the very core identity and foundation of Dispensationalism. In fact you cannot have any kind of Dipsy view without the foundation of the Historic Premil view.

 

Allan, the historic premil position is fundamentally different than dispensational premillennialism which requires a pretrib rapture. The idea of a pretrib rapture was unknown during the patristic age.

 

Hello Allan,

Thank you for these helpful posts.it looks as if i might wind up being laid over
on sat/sunday....so i will attempt to stir the pot so to speak and identify the articles that suggested what i put forth.
I do remember that you offered these ideas a year or two back. :thumbsup:

i am taking a lunch break....found this which is very helpful-

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/eschatology/eschatol.shtml

 

fromwiki pedia



If millenarian beliefs have fallen into disfavor in mainstream Christian theology today, this was not the case during the Early Christian centuries. At least during the first four centuries, millennialism was a well-known doctrine in both East and West.[1] Tertullian, Commodian, Lactantius, Methodius, and Apollinaris of Laodicea all advocated premillennial doctrine.[2] In addition, according to religious scholar the Rev. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee[3] the following is true, "Justin's 'Occasional Chiliasm' sui generis which was strongly anti-pretribulationistic was followed possibly by Pothinus in A.D. 175 and more probably (around 185) by Irenaeus – although Justin Martyr, discussing his own premillennial beliefs in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter 110, observed that they were not necessary to Christians:

I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise."[4]

Melito of Sardis is frequently listed as a second century proponent of premillennialism.[5] The support usually given for the supposition is that Jerome [Comm. on Ezek. 36 ] and Gennadius [De Dogm. Eccl., Ch. 52] both affirm that he was a decided millenarian.”[6]

In the early third century, Hippolytus of Rome wrote:

And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day "on which God rested from all His works." For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they "shall reign with Christ," when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years." Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6, 000 years must be fulfilled (Hippolytus. On the HexaËmeron, Or Six Days' Work. From Fragments from Commentaries on Various Books of Scripture).

Around 220, there were some similar influences on Tertullian though only with very important and extremely optimistic (if not perhaps even postmillennial modifications and implications). On the other hand, 'Christian Chiliastic' ideas were indeed advocated in 240 by Commodian; in 250 by the Egyptian Bishop Nepos in his Refutation of Allegorists; in 260 by the almost unknown Coracion; and in 310 by Lactantius.

Into the late fourth century, the bishop known as Ambrose of Milan had millennial leanings (Ambrose of Milan. Book II. On the Belief in the Resurrection, verse 108).

The first known opponent of Christian chiliasm was Marcion, in the 2nd century, who most Christians feel was an early heretic.[7] The Catholic Encyclopedia noted that in the 2nd century proponents of "Gnosticism rejected millenarianism".[8]

Chiliasm was, however, according to the interpretation of non-chiliasts, condemned as a heresy in the 4th century by the Church, which included the phrase whose Kingdom shall have no end in the Nicene Creed in order to rule out the idea of a Kingdom of God which would last for only 1000 literal years.[9] Despite some writers' belief in millennialism, it was a decided minority view, as expressed in the nearly universal condemnation of the doctrine over a gradual period of time, beginning with Augustine of Hippo.

Millennialism is strongly rejected as a heresy by the Orthodox Church. In AD 230, the Synod of Iconium declared that baptisms performed by the Montanist sect were invalid. The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in AD 381 supported the Synod of Iconium and further declared millennialism to be a heresy.

In a letter to Queen Gerberga of France around 950, Adso of Montier-en-Der established the idea of a "last World Emperor" who would conquer non-Christians before the arrival of the Antichrist.[10]
Reformation and beyond
Comparison of Christian millennial interpretations

Christian views on the future order of events diversified after the Protestant reformation (c.1517). In particular, new emphasis was placed on the passages in the Book of Revelation which seemed to say that Satan would be locked away for 1000 years, but then released on the world in a final battle (Rev. 20:1–6). Previous Catholic and Orthodox theologians had no clear or consensus view on what this actually meant (only the concept of an end of the world coming unexpected, "like a thief in a night", and the concept of "the antichrist" were almost universally held). Millennialist theories try to explain what this "1000 years of Satan in chains" would be like.

Various types of millennialism exist with regard to Christian eschatology, especially within Protestantism, such as Premillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Amillennialism. The first two refer to different views of the relationship between the "millennial Kingdom" and Christ's second coming. Premillennialism sees Christ's second advent as preceding the millennium, thereby separating the second coming from the final judgment. In this view, "Christ's reign" will be physical. Postmillennialism sees Christ's second coming as subsequent to the millennium and consequent with the final judgment. In this view "Christ's reign" (during the millennium) will be spiritual in and through the church. Amillennialism basically denies a future literal 1000 year kingdom and sees the church age metaphorically described in Rev. 20:1–6 in which "Christ's reign" is current in and through the church.

The Catholic Church now strongly condemns millennialism as the following shows:

The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism. (Catechism of the Catholic Church. Imprimatur Potest +Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Doubleday, NY 1995, p. 194).

A millennium is a period of one thousand years, and, in particular, Christ's thousand-year rule on this earth, either directly preceding or immediately following the Second Coming (and the Day of Judgment).

The millennium reverses the previous period of evil and suffering; it rewards the virtuous for their courage while punishing the evil-doers, with a clear separation of saints and sinners. The vision of a thousand-year period of bliss for the faithful, to be enjoyed here on earth ("heaven on earth"), exerted an irresistible power. Although the picture of life in the millennial era is almost willfully obscure and hardly more appealing than that of, say, the Golden Age, what has made the millennium much more powerful than the Golden Age or Paradise myths are the activities of the sects and movements that it has inspired. Throughout the ages, hundreds of sects were convinced that the millennium was imminent, about to begin in the very near future, with precise dates given on many occasions.

Premillennial sects look for signs of Christ's imminent return. Other chiliast sects, such as the prophetic Anabaptist followers of Thomas Müntzer, have believed that the millennium had already begun, with only their own members having realized this fact. Consequently, they have attempted to live out their own vision of millennial life, radically overturning the beliefs and practices of the surrounding society. In doing so, they offered a model of the good life and expressed their hope that soon the rest of the world would follow and live like they did.

 

I always look tot he very purpose of the Great tribulation, which is to prepare the earth for reign of Jesus, as earth systems demolished in that time, and isreal prepared to meet her King!

No need for the church to endure and go thru that period...

 

perhaps, but the truth is that what we call Covenant theology as regarding how to view the aspects of God dealing with Mna, and especially eschatology and relationship between Church/isreal was not known until catholic church after Augustine made it seem the norm to have A mil/church replacement theology going!

 

The question is not whether the church does or doesn't need to go through the Tribulation. The question is, what scripture verse teaches a pre-trib rapture.

The scriptures spend much time describing the events of the Tribulation (which we don't need if we're not going to be here). It spends exactly zero time giving us an unequivocal scripture fixing the time of a pre-trib rapture

 

Something similar could be said of the Trinity.

 

I rest your case.

 

Darby, Ruckman, Hyles, Roloff,Rice, Roberson, etc.
The mixed bag that is the fundamentalist movement, moved Baptists away from the Scriptures. Dispensational study systems, Schofield's original reference bible. Torrey, and Wheaton College, and all the other intelligensia, have kept this popular.
Amy Semple McPherson made a carecer of cRapture prophecy.
It will tail off When the Son of Perdition is revealed, and the Mark is instituted. No Born again Christian will take it.
There is a backlash against pre-trib mythology, now. One of my favorites is the movie :"After the Tribulation".

 

We do have one passage--Matthew 3:13-17--at the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. The Holy Spirit descended like a dove, and the voice from heaven said, "this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

 

And you believe that meets that standard?

I would also say that I reject the standard and being necessary.

 

The Bible would have us as the Church looking forward to the appearing of our Saviour the Lord Jesus as the sign to us, be ready to go in immenent moment, not having us to look to recognise who Antichrist will be!

 

We both agree that the scriptures speak to Jesus coming back and "snatching away" His Church out from the world, so we would just be discussing the timing of that event!

Think bigger issue to concern ourselves with is why some hold that there will not be an actual reign of jesus thru/by His Kingdom being physically manifested on the earth, as know our bethren see Him as spiritually reigning on earth now, but justcannot see that as time when wars will cease, and no more sickness, and people live really long time!

 

We won't be. But the rest of the world needs to know. Despite what many teach, I believe there is opportunity not just for the Jewish nation, but for all, to come to Christ during the Tribulation.

And our Bibles won't be raptured. Just the church.

 

think some of those against Dispy theology believe we teach none are saved in tribulation, but God will unleash 144,000 Jewish Billy grahams upon earth atthattime, and the message and the Spirit will still be procaliming, and still having sinners come to christ, just many will be killed for the faith!

 

Amen, brother! :thumbsup: raying:

 

Actually we agree on the Coming, and we agree on the Snatching, but part company after that.

To boil it down, I believe that the Snatching Away (or being "caught up" to meet him) is not a rapture of the saints back to heaven before the tribulation.

I see it as we'll be caught up to meet him in the air at the end of the Tribulation, then continue with Jesus as he descends, and return to earth where Jesus defeats the forces of Satan, chains him up and begins his millennial rule.

Of course, to be caught up at the Second Coming requires that we be here during the Tribulation.

And one other question. How can there be two Second Comings?