Featured Post tribulation arguments

Well as far as the topic goes I think the strongest argument is that no one knows the day or the hour and it would be too easy for anyone just to count forward 7 years from the making of the covenant.

 

No one knows the day nor the hour of the rapture. However, revelation clearly states that the beast, the false prophet and all the armies of the world are gathered together to fight against the one on the white horse which is the Lord Jesus. How do they know to gather there to fight Him?

 

Yeah that's just another reason that the post trib rapture doesn't work because the armies gathering together would definitely be a clue that the rapture is coming very soon.

 

Spurgeon was not a dispensational premillennialist. He was a Historical Premillennialist. There is a distinction between those two ideas that must be maintained. It is dishonest to push dispensationalism into historical premillennialism when they do not fit together. The central issue of Dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church.
Darby, Schofield, Ryrie all make that very clear.
Here is Ryrie:

Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 47.

But now for quotes from Spurgeon himself on this issue.

Charles H. Spurgeon, "Jesus Christ Immutable," in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 15:8.
Bold Mine

He considered the idea of Israel and the Church being distinct from each other an " absurdity"
That itself is enough to put him firmly outside of the camp of Dispensationalism.
But for the sake of argument I will continue.
I think we can all agree that another mark of Dispensationalism is the "Pre-Trib" Rapture of the Church.
Well lets see what Spurgeon said about the timing of the Rapture.
To be honest he does not say a lot about the rapture but I did find this sermon

This quote alone shows that Spurgeon believes we will be on earth during the tribulation and that we are to view it as a time to life up our heads waiting for his return.
Some more quotes from this sermon

This sermon shows that if Spurgeon had a view on the rapture it was post-trib. He makes it clear throughout the sermon that he believe we will be on earth during the tribulation. There is no way you can get a pre-trib view out of this sermon.

So there is the two big distinctions between Classical Premillennialism and Dispensational Pre-Millennialism and Spurgeon clearly falls into the Classical camp.


Continued:

 

Yes Premillennialism has been taught, but as I said above there is a distinction between Classical (also known as Historical) and Dispensationalism.
Here is the disticntion as I understand them taken from here
1. First, historic premillennialists believe in New Testament priority in which the New Testament interprets/reinterprets the OT.
2. Second, historic premillennialists believe the church is the new Israel.
3. Third, unlike dispensationalists, historic premillennialists do not believe in a future restoration of national Israel.
Of course there is also the timing of the Rapture, as Pre-trib is curcial to dispensational thought since it fits with their clear division between Israel and the Church.

Issac Watts was not a Dispensationalist or even a Proto-Dispensationalist.
First is must be noted that using the word "Dispensation" does not make use a Dispensationalist.

link

link

link

link
Can't be a Dispensationalist if you don't see the Church and Israel as distinct. And you really can't if you believe that the Church has replaced Israel which is why Watts cannot be counted among the Dispensationalist camp.

Then do so. I have seen that claim many times but on further investigation it has always fallen apart. At best what I have seen is people taking the Classical Premillennial teachings and try to shove Dispensationalism into it but it doesn't work, they are too distinct from each other to be merged together throughout history.

Again if that is true that all Darby did was put "these things together" you should be able to show a clear historical trend of Dispensational teaching. I look forward to see that, because as I have said before my Dispensational Bible College did not have a problem stating that Darby was the founder of Dispensational thought, they made no claims to Classical Premillennialism. But maybe you know something that my Professors there did not.

 

The pre-trib view works perfectly with Rev. 19 because the Bride is in heaven for the marriage feast and marriage prior to the Lord's coming to defeat those armies. It says she has made herself ready in verse 7 of chapter 19. Then it states how she is arrayed, in fine linen clean and white. Further the it says in verse 14 the army that accompanies Christ is dressed in fine linen clean and white, just as the bride is adorned. Where have we seen these garments before? Revelation 4:4 the 24 elders after the voice and trumpet sound and the call to come up hither. Thus the church called up she that is the church is not mentioned after this until Revelation 19 and the marriage of the lamb. Scripture upon scripture proves out the pre-trib view. No other eschetological teaching can be proven out without stretching it.

 

20 plus years of trying and no one has proven the pre-trib rapture to me. But The OP was looking for arguments against the Post Trib view and I gave them one as I also do not believe in a Post-Trib Rapture.

 

The best way to prove any teaching as being incorrect is to use scripture to prove the true teaching of scripture. Of course the problem in eschatology is many don't try to prove their point by using scripture. Instead they talk about how the other person view is false or even heretical. Scripture will harmonize with scripture in many cases to prove the truth and the Holy Spirit will guide to prove that truth out

 

This I agree with And of course my view has been called heretical a time or two so you know it works in all directions.

 

I have a friend in South Carolina...Myrtle Beach area, who pastors a Reformed SBC church. He falls into the historical pre-mill group that does not agree with dispensationalism whatsoever. He sees the church and Israel as the one sheepfold.

He sees the church enduring until the end, and not raptured about before the great tribulation. Being amil, I can find a lot of agreement with my dear Brother's eschatology. With the dispensationalists? Not so much.

 

True, the more I study the differences between all the camps the more it frustrates me that some Dispensationalist want to sneak into the Historical pre-mill camp to use their history to bolster their claims.

 

Actually, as we have discussed many times (though you still harp about Darby, lol), the Pre-Trib Removal of the Church who compose the Church at the time of the Rapture was taught by Paul in the First Century. One need only study the Bible to see this.

The Concept of the Church as a parenthesis has not been mentioned, by knowledge, by anyone in this thread, so not sure why you bring it up other than you have no ability to address this thread under your own eschatological bias. However, that there is a parenthetical nature to the Tribulation itself is very apparent, if only based on the fact that this period is distinguished in both Old and New Testaments ass a specific time in History unique to itself. The "Church Age" as many call this current Age, is not a parenthesis, but a beginning to the cumulative results of the Redemptive Plan of God. Just as the Law was unique in it's own right, and not a parenthesis, but the prescribed will of God for Israel which also impacted the world.

If you care to discuss any of these issues, perhaps this is not the thread, though I would say that the A-mil view is certainly an argument against a poet or pre-trib view, lol.

In case the above doesn't register, let me say something in your a language you can understand:

Darby in the darby through darby , and then darby by 1800s darby darby reaching darby invented darby darby darby.

Darby Darby that darby makes darby theology darby darby darby, and don't darby that darby those that darby darby darby.


Darby darby.

 

Could you point out where he state Spurgeon is a Dispensational Premillennial?

And this is the typical response that we see from a-millennials, particularly the member in view in DHKs response: you are not even addressing what is said, and seeking to argue about something everyone else is sick of hearing.

You owe DHK an apology for your error.

Perhaps if you had read his post and responded to what he said you would not have wasted this space: a distinction was drawn, and the views compared, not said to be the same.

You are the one who does that in your inability to comprehend what is being said.

And as far as a dispensational view being incompatible with a historical premillennial view, perhaps if you spent more time in your Bible than reading the theologies of men you might come to understand how ignorant such a statement is.

You will not refute that there are differing Ages or Economies in Biblical History;

You will not refute that there is a Rapture;

You will not refute there will be a Tribulation which is distinct period prophesied;

You will not refute that there will be a one thousand year period following the Tribulation;

You will not refute that Israel was not the Church;

And you will not refute any First Century Biblical teaching, which all of these are.

If you want to try...step up. But don't bring the words of men...we will examine these issues in the Word of God.


Continued...

 

If you look into Spurgeon's idea of a 'millennium,' you will find that it actually has no end.
I attended some lectures on Spurgeon's eschatology at the Metropolitan Tabernacle some years back, and it is the view of his successor, Peter Masters, that his position most closely resembled Amillennialism.

I will try to find my lecture notes.

 

No...it isn't.

Just because you sit under teachers who are greatly biased and confused, and have muddled your thoughts with junk theology greatly tinged with hatred...doesn't mean the nonsense spouted is relevant to anyone in this thread in this discussion.

What is a dispensation?

Is it a division of people?

Or Ages and ministries of God?

And that is precisely DHKs point in regards to OR...an incessant hang-up with Darby despite the fact...no-one even quotes Darby.

Dispensational Theology has a central focus on the differing ministrations, and how the Church and Israel play into that is only one aspect of a multi-faceted view based on a more literal rendering of Scripture, which, I will throw in, is how men have always rendered the Word of God.

So Ryrie places a distinction between Israel and the Church first you think that is the central issue.

Great.

Now let's set Mr. Ryrie and Dispensationalism aside and actually look at what Scripture teaches.

And I will guarantee you that Dispensational will far closer to substantiating their views than your teacher...OR. I would say you but you don't seem to know what to believe. Ever get that worked out?

This might surprise you, but some of us could care less what Mr. Spurgeon has to say. At least...we don't put his views above what Scripture actually teaches.

By the way, the post you responded to plainly stated that Spurgeon was a Calvinist.

I hate to say it, but the above shows quite a bit of confusion. Prince of Preachers? lol

A distinction between Israel and the Church does not mean "the Lord has not some children best beloved, some second-rate offspring, and others whom he hardly cares about," it has to do with the revelation provided to each group and the ministry God was effecting during those times.

And they are different.

Even prior to Israel being created, God was ministering differently among men.

If you care to discuss this, perhaps you might better understand something that I am sure Mr. Spurgeon understands better now.

Not quite the word I would think is appropriate.

And he was wrong.

Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is.

And I would ask you...are you saying that all of Israel was saved? Do you not understand that only the faithful of Israel were counted as just? And that even though counted just through faith...they were still in need of Atonement?

I can understand you not understanding the difference between a people who to a man died not having eternal redemption through Christ, but Spurgeon? Thanks for the quote. I will put that up there with his charismatic tendencies.

You're the only one putting him in there.

But I am used to you debating something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

A truer word was never spoken, "for the sake of argument," and unfortunately, that's all you are able to offer right now.

No, that is a mark of careful study of First Century teachings of the Bible.

Any time you want to actually discuss what the Bible has to say about it let me know. If you would like to present a Biblical presentation to substantiate an A-mil view, or a mid-Trib view, or a poet-trib view...let me know.


Continued...

 

What a lot of fluff. lol

At the very least, we can see that Spurgeon believed in a specific time of tribulation.

And that makes it a Biblical truth? lol

Got any Bible passages to back up this view?

Oh that's right, your just arguing. No need to bring the Bible into this.

That was actually spoken to Israel, though we see it applies to Gentiles who are born again in the Tribulation.

The point being...Israel was the intended audience when Christ taught it then.

Want to argue about that?

I would have to disagree with Spurgeon, very little fear, very little dread, but...

...strong delusion and hope in their god, the antichrist.

We do see moments when fear arises, but the general attitude of the unbelieving will be one of trust in Antichrist.

I am sure this tickled many ears, perhaps still does, but not something that particularly impresses me.

Especially in a discussion centered on post-trib arguments.

And where do you see a rapture...at all?

That is true, but where does he speak of a post-trib rapture...anywhere in these quotes?

You can't even get a post-trib view.

But again, arguing, I understand.

Now show how your point is relevant to what DHK posted, and explain why you do not address what he actually said.


God bless.

 

So let's see what the actual teaching is. We can trace that back to men inspired of God to convey truth.

Instead of arguing over what men say.

You don't?

You don't see the New Testament as not only holding new revelation, but clarifying the Old?

If you don't, my sympathies.

Do you?

Do Dispensationalists?

And this is relevant because...?

Because you thought DHK said Spurgeon was a Dispensational premillennial?

Paul is a true Historical Premillenial believer, and he most certainly believed in the future restoration of Israel.

But again...relevance to this thread, or even DHKs post?

None whatsoever. Your teachers have taught you well, you replicate their own confusion.

First...nothing is curcial to dispensational thought. Just had to get that out of the way.

Secondly, the Pre-Trib Rapture is not crucial, but simply an element within dispensational theology. It is a distinctive, but takes a backseat to the concept of differing ministries in differing Ages. The building of the Church began at Pentecost on the framework of faith in the death of Christ.

Find that in the Old Testament. Find one person in the Gospels that believed in Christ.

Dare ya.

Tell that to these Presbyterians.

Of course, they sound a little vitriolic and biased in their presentation, which might interest you.

And that means what, exactly? lol

And curious how one can call someone a Calvinist and show similarities in views and that means one is a dispensationalist. So is that it? Did you mean to say "One doesn't even have to use the word dispensation to be called one"?

And the relevance of this to a post trib argument?

To DHKs post?

It doesn't change the fact that the same general views predate Darby. Labeling Darby as the father of Dispensationalism and denying those views prior, which is what was said in the post, boils down to absurdity.

Show me Dispensational teaching that affirms this in regards to Atonement.

Show me any other issue where the type is not considered shadow.

Continued...

 

Isn't that what a-millennials do?

The Old Testament contains shadow, parable, and figure of what God would do in this Age.

Israel is a picture of the Church, but we would be foolish to ascribe Israel as the Church. She is not.

I agree with Watts' views. He is correct, though we would have to have more to see if the "replacing" of Israel speaks of the type yielding to the antitype.

We can say with some authority that based on Prophecy Israel will be active as a Nation in the Millennial Kingdom. That does not preclude the fact that all believers in that day will be the Church of Christ, for only those born again, something that did not take place in Old Testament Economies...can be called the Church.

Jews who are saved following Pentecost become members of the Church, but, those Jews do not shed their heritage, nor do they relinquish the promises made to them as a Nation, for every promise of God will be fulfilled to the letter.

So the above quote is a little obscure, and would have to have more of his view explained in order to see if it is consistent with Scripture.

And that is not consistent with Scripture.

If that is true then Watts is in error.

But that would not exclusively deny his holding to Dispensational Distinctives. Nor does it negate the points made by DHK.

It would seem the quotes make it clear he makes a distinction. Sounds dispensational to me. The view that Israel was the type is the distinction.

According to your human source.

How about actually discussing The Source.

Then perhaps your hang-up with Dispensationalism might take a back seat.

Irrelevant. Except to point out that this view is not exclusive to a dispensational view.

Be glad to: Israel will be preserved in the wilderness for 3 1/2 years.

Not the Church.

Want to go back further? Read Romans 9-11.

Perhaps if you had actually read the post you would see that the correlation to Darby's views and views that precede them can be seen.

And if you actually read your Bible once in a while you would see that the views of Dispensationalism correlate to Biblical Truth far better than an A-millennial view, a Mid-Trib view, or a Post-Trib view.

True Historical Premillennialism is derived from the New Testament, not the works of men. And when you can show why a pre-trib rapture does not correspond to Biblical Teachings, then perhaps you might have something.

But you cannot. You know it, I know it.

If it is true?

Don't you know whether or not revelation is progressive or not?

Let's not gloss over that point and jump straight to "putting facts together."

You can see it in the Bible. Just how much more historical can one get?

No, you don't, not really. You have been shown on several occasions that I know of, and concluded you were going to join the A-millennial camp.

And who cares what your "bible" college taught. That is your primary problem, the teachings of men given more time than the teachings of Scripture.

Perhaps you should go back and teach them the difference.

So far the results your "professors" have had are not all that impressive.

If you cannot see the correlation between Darby's views and Scripture, and instead would rather take a derisive attitude towards a theological system that by far correlates to Scripture than the A-mil, Mid, and Post trib position, help yourself.


God bless.

 

It's not true, it is merely opinion offered that has no Biblical justification whatsoever.

Israel and the Church are not "one Sheep-fold."

This suggests that men were eternally saved by being born as a Jew, and that is simply absurd.


God bless.

 

And that is precisely those who understand the signs of the times will do.

The Day of the Lord coming upon men as a thief in the night applies primarily to the wicked. But the discerning of the Tribulation will know precisely what is going on, and because of that...they will be saved.

And by understanding Scripture they will know the time of the Lord's Return.

Israel, for instance, when preserved in the Wilderness, will have a 3 1/2 year clock.

We do not know the day nor the hour at this point, but, it is irrelevant to the Church, as she will be caught up prior to the Tribulation.


God bless.