Featured Post tribulation arguments

So why choose the holocaust? Remember that the "Great Tribulation" is against the nations of the world, and is the salvation of the world not the extermination of Israel. You have these events confused.

Why not choose the Asian Genocide instead?
The Asian Holocaust was perpetrated by Japanese Emperor Hirohito and the Imperial Japanese Army during World War II.
Estimated killed: 10,000,000

Or perhaps The Holodomor (1932-1933)?
The Holodomor was the extermination of Ukrainians by famine. It was perpetrated by the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin.
Estimated killed: 7,500,000

Or, The Congo “Free” State (1885-1908) ?
The privately owned “Congo Free State” was controlled by Leopold II of Belgium. It is said that during his control of the region he committed numerous crimes against humanity upon the indigenous Africans of Central Africa.
Estimated killed: 10,000,000
http://www.rantpolitical.com/2014/12/06/15-worst-genocides-in-history/

Why just the Holocaust you term as a "Second Tribulation"?
Any one of these genocides could have been a "fulfillment of scripture" in your scheme of things. But none of them, not even the holocaust, fulfills the scripture that you quoted nor the other related prophetic scriptures.

 

We know Christ went to prepare a place for us, and that place is in existence today, and will come down from Heaven in the Eternal State. It is my belief that glorified saints will reside there during the Millennial Kingdom, as will Christ, and that we will minister among men in that Age.

But that does not preclude Christ's presence on earth, nor a Throne from which He will reign during that Age. Christ does not have to sit on a physical Throne on the earth in order to rule the world.

The fact remains, though, we do see Christ stepping foot on terra firma, despite your denial of this...


Zechariah 14

King James Version (KJV)

1 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.


Your argument seeks to deny the Return of Christ after the Tribulation, and place it only in conjunction with the end of this current universe (or something like that, lol). Hence it is an equation of Christ's rule today with the physical rule prophesied of throughout Scripture. That is why the Jew under Law expected Christ to ride in and temporally "save the day," and begin that Kingdom at His First Coming.

We see that even the disciples of Christ, prior to be Baptized with the Holy Ghost...still have a carnal understanding of this:


Acts 1

King James Version (KJV)

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?


This is the equivalent, really, of telling someone "Believe on the name of Christ and you will be eternally saved and share eternity with God," only to be answered with..."Will He make me rich? Give me a good job? A large house with a pool?"


The Tribulation ends with Christ's Return, that is clear in Scripture. Also clear is that there will be a thousand year reign which is implicitly distinct from His Rule as Sovereign God.


God bless.

 

Good idea.

Then there would not be the incessant interruption by people who want to debate about Darby, refuse to address points made, refuse to address Scripture, and simply seek a platform to share their own views.

Wonderful idea.





God bless.

 

I would say you have sufficiently shown that the events of the First Century cannot be considered fulfillment of the tribulation that will come upon the earth which will be the worst time in history.


God bless.

 

Was all of Daniels prophecy fulfilled? No, you state much of it was, well according to Deuteronomy 19:22 all his prophecy must be fulfilled. Jeremiah 28:9 the word of the prophet must come to pass. If it doesn't then he is a false prophet. So was all of Daniel's prophecy fulfilled or part? If partial then there is more to be fulfilled or he is a false prophet, so which is it?

 

I have always thought the great tribulation was toward the house of Judah and the house of Israel, ie, Jacob's trouble and the wrath of God which comes after the great tribulation to be toward the world.

Maybe I have been and or am, wrong. I also consider the house of Judah and the house of Israel to be two different sticks until the return of Christ to join them together.

 

Christ will be reigning in the new heavens and new earth, which, it seems to me, will be one place (Rev. 21:1-3 etc.). See Matt. 5:4 and Rev. 5:10.

 

In the OT "The Day of the Lord" often refers not only to tribulation but also to the time of Israel's deliverance. It is a day when Christ will come again (as Messiah) on this earth, and deliver Israel from all her enemies. There are dozens of OT passages that describe and testify to this great day.

There is one in particular in the NT that refers to it very specifically:
Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
--How can this take place in a "new earth"?
It is a great battle that takes place on this earth when Christ comes (vs.1-18).
The armies of the world are defeated. After that the Kingdom begins which is referred to in the first few verses of Revelation 20.

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

The "pre-trib-removal-of-the-Saints-who-compose-the-Church" and the concept of the Church as a "Parenthesis" in GOD's program for Israel are based on the false doctrine invented by one John Nelson Darby in the early 1800's, a period that gave the world many false doctrinal organizations. This false doctrine was popularized in this country by the Scofield Reference Book!

 

same old; same old. A lie often repeated does not make it a truth.

 

Just because you don't believe what Darby taught, does not mean its a lie that he taught the church was a parentheses in God's program. I was taught this at my dispensationalist Bible College.

 

OR continues to spout from his belief of a parenthisis church. While overlooking God's plan was always to establish that church. God in His foreknowledge knew Israel would reject their Messisah and the church would be ushered in. God who revealed to Daniel that the Messiah would come and be cut off that is rejected would Coe back and establish His Kingdom. Jesus who stated that upon the faith of the little rock He would establish His church knew that is had foreknowledge of the establishment of the church told the disciples that. But OR is hung up on his belief in a parenthesis church keeps spouting off about it.

 

OR does not believe in a parentheses church. He is pointing out correctly that John Darby taught that the church was a parentheses in God's program. I'm glad to see you disagree with John Darby on that issue.

 

I have read very little of Darby's work. Nothing spiritual that happens occurs without God's predestined plan which includes the church. Which includes the pre-tribulation snatching away of that church the Brideof Christ. That includes the time to follow the Snatching away which is the seven year tribulatilon, culminating with the second comiing and Christ 1000 year reign

 

:wavey::applause::wavey:..... yes indeed that's the heart of the teaching:wavey:

 

Well I disagree with your view on the rapture but I do agree with your view that God predestined everything including the church. So lets keep this discussion honest and not accuse other poster of things they don't believe. OR does not believe that the church is a parentheses and if you read his post you would see he finds that idea as repugnant.

 

It is not what Darby taught that I necessarily disagree with. It is the rhetoric and false accusations that OR brings against Darby. Let's look at it a bit more objectively.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Victorian England's best-known Baptist minister, was born on June 19, 1834 in Kelvedon, Essex.
--Most here are well acquainted with the beliefs of Spurgeon, that he was a Calvinist, etc. However, Spurgeon did believe in a rapture or a Second Coming very distinct from the resurrection of the damned. He did believe in an earthly millennial kingdom of one thousand years. Both of these OR denies. His theology resembles that of Darby, but it could be argued that he in no way got his theology from Darby. He lived in the same time period and heard of his teachings. But he had his own.

Now consider Darby:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/pastorsandpreachers/darby.html?start=1

First Darby went into law--four years.
Then he was a Catholic priest for over two years.
Then he was saved and became part of the Brethren church.
This is a great contrast to the Calvinistic Baptist upbringing of Spurgeon.

If you read carefully the beliefs that he had, there is nothing new.
Premillennialism had been taught before. It simply had "fallen out of favor" for 1500 years. It was not the popular teaching of the day. So it was new to that generation.

Dispensationalism had been taught before. Isaac Watts taught dispensationalism. Some say that the dispensationalism that Watts taught was closer to that of Scofield than Darby's. Many throughout history have taught dispensationalism. It is not new.

How many dispensations are there? People today quibble over the same thing. Why should that be a point of controversy?

He saw things as "progressive revelation." Many people do. Many people have in history. It is not uncommon. No matter what eschatological stance one takes this is not new.

The point is made that his interpretation is literal. This is not novel. That is the way the ECF interpreted the Bible. The person that introduced the allegorical method of interpretation was Origen, and the person that made it popular was Augustine. It was unknown before that time. A literal interpretation certainly isn't novel.

Then he believed in a separation of Israel and the church. This also is not a novel idea. These beliefs can be traced to many throughout history.

What he did is put these things all together. We build on those who have gone before us. Revelation is progressive. He didn't find anything new. He simply put things together that others believed before him. And yet he is castigated for this, and unfairly so. OR calls him a heretic full of false doctrine, and the cause of the downfall or heresies of many. He is not in any place to say such things.

 

Yes I know. One thing I really appreciate about the Bible College I want to is that they were honest about the history of Dispensationalism and what it taught. It's been amazing to me since I graduated how many want to hide that history and attack those that present the true history. That was one of the major things that lead me away from the dispensationalist camp. Why would they not be honest if they truly believed it was true.

 

:applause::applause:....yes. ..it is dishonest even you could say shameful....but I enjoy your solid posting very much to bring a reality check to this.off course discussion.
It was to deal with post trib objections...:saint: