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

Where do you get this from?

 

How can you call Jesus' meeting His church in the air a "coming"? It isn't.

 

I'm referring to the pre-trib view that Jesus' coming has two phases: One, pre-trib, the other at the end of the Tribulation.

So actually, that view has three comings. The first advent, the rapture, the coming at the end of the Tribulation.

 

If we're going to be caught up, then Jesus must be coming in our direction for us to meet him in the air.

 

You've got the "third heaven", the "second heaven", the "first heaven", and the earth (surface of).
Last time I looked, "the clouds" were in the "first heaven" and not on the surface of the earth.
Small details in scripture make all the difference. The Holy Spirit is very "precise".

 

Well, one thing for sure, after the Rapture passes, it will not have a future.

 

At best that is your characterization. The second coming is not until Jesus steps foot on earth again. That has nothing to do with the rapture. There is no position in the pre-trib view that suggests there is 3 future comings.

 

It's still not the Second Coming, or another "coming" other than His second. The Second Coming refers to His bringing judgment on the Earth. The Rapture does not do that.

 

actually, we tend to see is as being that just as his First coming involved his birth, death, resurrection/ascension, differing aspects all part of His First coming, that his Second coming will have the rapture of the church, then the Coming back to reign on earth, all part of his Second Coming!

Just different timing aspects of it!

 

The dispensational interpretation of Scripture was developed in Plymouth, England by John Nelson Darby, of the Plymouth Brethern, early in the 19th Century. That teaching with its pre-trib rapture of the Church was popularized in this country by Scofield and his Reference Bible which unfortunately fell into the hands of a lot of gullible people who would not or could not tell the difference between Scofield's notes and Scripture.

The false doctrine of the pre-trib rapture of the church is based on an erroneous interpretation of Daniel's 70th week. It totally ignores the fact that Jesus Christ in John 5:28, 29 teaches a general resurrection and judgment. There is not a single passage of Scripture that directly teaches a pre-trib rapture.

That being said the "Rapture Ready" people can have their erroneous eschatology if it makes them happy. The most egregious error of classic or historic dispensationalism is its insistence on a "Parenthesis Church" as a stop gap in God's plan for Israel.

And then there is the off shoot, hyper-dispensationalism, with its insistence on "Paul's Gospel for the Gentiles" as different than the Gospel of Jesus Christ which the Apostle Paul defines in his letter to the Church at Rome:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Thankfully there is a movement away from classic dispensationalism, called progressive dispensationalism, which is much like the historic premillennial doctrine.

John F. Walvoord, the preeminent dispensationalist theologian and former president of the Dallas Theological Seminary confesses that the validity of the pre-tribulation ‘rapture’ depends on the definition of the Church [Major Bible Prophecies, page 282]. Before presenting Walvoord’s remarks concerning this question it is worthwhile to consider the definition of the Church as presented in The Baptist Faith and Message [Section VI] adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, Georgia on June 14, 2000 states.

Walvoord writes, regarding the definition of the church, [Major Bible Prophecies, page 282]:

We see from the definition of the Church as presented in the Baptist Faith and Message and the remarks by Walvoord that the doctrine of a pretribulation rapture of the Church contradicts current Southern Baptist Doctrine as well as historic Baptist Doctrine.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones in his book, The Church and Last Things, asserts that Darby was influenced by Edward Irving, a charismatic Scottish preacher, who established a new church in London called the Catholic Apostolic Church. As reported by Lloyd-Jones [page 138] the origin of ‘the secret rapture’ is the result of a prophetic utterance in the Catholic Apostolic Church. This utterance was supposedly in tongues, interpreted by someone and considered ‘a revelation’. There is much dispute as to whether the so-called revelation occured in Irving’s church or elsewhere and was then discovered by Irving. The origin of this ‘revelation’ has been attributed to Margaret Macdonald of Port Glasgow, Scotland. Her revelation was first published in Robert Norton's Memoirs of James & George Macdonald, of Port Glasgow (1840), pp. 171-176. Norton published it again in The Restoration of Apostles and Prophets; In the Catholic Apostolic Church (1861), pp. 15-18. Whether all of this is historical truth is subject to debate. However, it is apparently historical fact that there was a split within the Plymouth Bretheren as the result of Darby’s acceptance of the two event Second Coming and the "parenthesis" church.

 

So all those poor people who undergo the "great 7 year tribulation" and have to face 666 are not under the judgment of God? This 7 years is not really a time of Jacob's troubles?

 

Do you understand it yet Tom? The Coming of Jesus Christ for His Church is not really a second Coming. Perhaps the Church will just have to find Heaven on their own. But which one, the first, the second, or the third. Can't forget beameup! Riding on a cloud for 7 years might not be so bad.:laugh:

 

Not three future comings, but two phases of the second one.

The first coming was his birth, death and resurrection.

I want to suggest that the view that the rapture involves our being taken up with him back to heaven for seven years may be faulty.

Here's why. There is no specific scripture which says so.

I Thessalonians 4:17 says:

The verse says we shall be with the Lord, but it does not say where.

We can also appeal to Revelation 21:7

It does not say our dwelling place is with God, but that God's dwelling place is with men.

And we can speculate that the dwelling place is not on some cloud somewhere, but on the new earth which came down out of heaven. Maybe during the millenial reign?

I just don't see enough clear scripture that demands a pre-trib rapture, and plenty of scripture which suggests a post-trib coming.

 

No, actually, they're not. They are a promise, and the response of those present on Earth then will determine which one of those two promises applies to them individually.

The first is a promise of judgment. In Exodus 32:34, God gives Moses a sober warning concerning Israel’s sin in the Golden Calf – a day will come when He visits Israel for punishment. This verse can be easily passed over, but within it is the summary of how God will deal with Israel and the nations. We have to consider what had just happened din the wilderness. God had just done something never done before, or since, in history. He personally brought the nation of Israel up out of Egypt with unequalled signs and wonders. In the desert, His presence came down and shook Mount Sinai in the presence of all the people. He spoke audibly to a nation and made covenant with them. It was so tender to God that He refers to this period of time as they day He “betrothed” or “married” Israel in the wilderness.

After all that happened, while Moses was meeting with God, Israel formed and fashioned an idol, a golden calf. The nation then worshipped this idol and gave affection to – going so far as to give this idol credit for delivering them from Egypt. Israel was committing the great sin of all men. From God’s perspective, He had just made a marriage covenant with Israel and Israel was committing adultery while she was still on the honeymoon. He had joined Himself to the nation in a way that no doubt the angels could not comprehend, but as Israel gave herself to adultery right after her deliverance, the angels waited with baited breath to see what YHWH would do. How would He respond?

To be true to Himself, God had to judge Israel’s adultery, and all the cosmos watched to see if God would be true to His own law. Would He judge the sin of a people even though it was the people He had joined Himself to? Would He be true to Himself and His covenant? As angels hung on every word, God spoke to Moses. Even though they had rejected Him, He would continue to go before the nation to secure their promised inheritance. The nation had received mercy. There sin was so great that God’s presence would remain distant. This is detailed in Exodus 32:34 and 33:2-3, but He would fulfill His promises to them, as promised in those same verses. However, He must be true to Himself. The day of punishment would come. However, it would not happen in that generation. He would visit for punishment on the nation at a future day and time.

The second is the promise of mercy, and in reality, that has been partially fulfilled in the intervening years -- for Israel, from her adultery; for the world, for her rejection of Christ. They are truthfully one and the same sin. Once those times come upon the Earth, God will still be merciful, in showing the world His might, His power, His justice while also revealing His grace and mercy in delaying that final judgment with Christ's actual, physical return to Earth. When He sets foot on the Mount of Olives, that will be the end of grace and mercy. Israel has had thousands of years to see Him in His glory and mercy. The world will have seven years additionally to the two thousand years of grace and mercy given it through the ministry of Christ. In that seven years, both Israel and the world will have the opportunity to repent. But when Christ's feet touch the Earth, the final judgment begins.

 

Israel was judged or punished routinely for their sins. These are recorded throughout the Old Testament and are too numerous to list but start with Israel's 40 year vacation in the wilderness and ending with Rome conquering the Promise Land. Their final punishment was 70 AD with the destruction of the temple.

Sadly in Dispensational doctrine the Church is really a parenthesis and a failure. They are taken out of the world so that 144,000 Jews can preach some gospel of the kingdom.

 

the concept of Jesus coming back for His own people was not a "novel" idea, nor was the idea of Him coming back to reign upon the earth in a physical fashion!


think that the early church was primarily pree Mil in their view regarding jesus returning, and manyof them also saw Him ruling over a restored Isreal of that time...

Church strated to divert big time from that with Augustine and thsoe after Him, who allogorized/spiritualized the prophetic of isreal as being now fulfilled in the Church!

THAT concept waas really the new and novel one!

 

Uh ... no, not even close. But thanks for playing.

 

Just like Dispensationalists allegorize Daniel's 70th week, John 5:28, 29; John 14:2, 3: 1 Thessalonians 3:13, Revelation 4:1 and anything they can to support their doctrinal error. You people insist on a literal interpretation of Scripture, why don't you interpret John 5:28, 29 literally. Why? I tell you why! It destroys the dispensational doctrine.

 

Dream on!:laugh:

 

Oh, and another thing ...

I guess this means you think the 2,000 year history of the church accounts for nothing. That the church's work either hasn't started yet, or never will. How do you suppose the message of the gospel is alive and well for those evangelists to preach it in the seven years of tribulation? Oh, never mind ... you don't believe that is going to happen, either.

I don't think you even understand what a dispensationalist is, or the doctrine to which we adhere. That doctrine is the Bible.

Essentially, we believe (I'm speaking of so-called "modified" dispensational thought) that there are two distinct peoples of God: Israel and the Church. Each has different roles to fulfill in the world, from the beginning. Salvation is the same for both groups. The Church and Israel exist together during the millennial reign. Let me know if you've got further questions.