Featured Post tribulation arguments

You didn't seriously just say this, did you?

Do you think after you speak? If so, please give this one some thought.


God bless.

 

Good quotes blessedwife
also you notice the long-winded bloviating nasty unkind response to your solid post
and quotes of Spurgeon showing that they use them out of context that's like these guys they try to make Spurgeon into an Arminian Spurgeon
also you know they just can't take the truth.... good job patiently patiently weeding through it and answering in a proper way

 

I didn't. You brought it up. Twice.

19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and Babylon the great was remembered in the sight of God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath. Rev 16

4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come forth, my people, out of her, that ye have no fellowship with her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues:
5 for her sins have reached even unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
6 Render unto her even as she rendered, and double unto her the double according to her works: in the cup which she mingled, mingle unto her double. Rev 18

The judgment of the Harlot is a central theme during the 'sixth head' of Revelation. This is the 'great tribulation' Christ was referring to in the Olivet Discourse.

The ten horns that hate the Harlot and eat her flesh and burn her with fire come later during the 'epoch' of the seventh head (Holy Roman Empire).

 

His misrepresentation of Spurgeon is thoroughly exposed here:

http://www.spurgeon.org/eschat.htm

 

Note: I am not attempting to derail the thread, but a question that some of you might consider (or not).

Remember when the Lord Jesus spoke about two being in bed one taken the other left, two in the field one taken the other left...

Consider if the one taken has the hope of the pre-tribulation rapture, and the one left is post or a-mil - having to endure to the end because they deny the truth of the Scriptures... :flower:

Just wondering out loud while verifying the warranty and working order of my recliner.

 

I believe there is a problem with definitions here, especially among the Calvinists.
It seems that a "dispensationalist" must be defined "according to Darby."
If dispensations or dispensationalism is not "Darby's dispensationalism (according to amill camp, et. al.), then it is not dispensationalism at all. It is either Darby's dispensationalism or nothing. Nothing else is tolerated as dispensationalism, such as Isaac Watts' dispensationalism. He can't be a dispensationalist simply because his dispensationalism didn't originate with Darby or is not the same as Darby.

They need to go back to the drawing board.
What is a dispensation??

They also need to go back to the basics.
Since when do men like Darby become our rule of faith and doctrine, and not the Bible?

 

When one examines the veracity of a manuscript, there is the assumption that the closest to the original is the most accurate view.

The same should be considered with the end times time line.

So what were the Apostles and their disciples teaching?

Here is a snip from the thesis Jerome linked:

The "Historic" Premillennial position is easily seen in the early church fathers.122 It was formerly known as "Chiliasm," after the Greek word for 1,000. Virtually all historians acknowledge that a premillennial faith was the dominant eschatological belief in the church from "the apostolic age until the time of Augustine."123 Nathaniel West (1826- 1906), writing on "The History of the Premillennial Doctrine" (which Dr. Wilbur Smith called, "the most important history of the premillennial doctrine that exists in the literature of that generation."124) stated this:

History has no consensus more unanimous for any doctrine than is the consensus of the Apostolic Fathers for the pre-millennial advent of Christ.125​

(taken from: http://www.spurgeon.org/eschat.htm, section C - Bold emphasis mine)

I left the hyper links intact to show the documentation used to support the statement in the thesis.

 

I agree, DHK.

Actually, Darby was a bit late to the table of dispensationalism, but he was good at public relations and sparking interest.

Was Daniel was the first "dispensationalist" with his dream of the monster?

 

Well, alright. But just as an example of something more horrible than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., not as a fulfillment of prophecy. It wasn't, just as any of the other massacres or genocides that I listed were not prophetic in nature. They were periods of tribulation for those that went through them. If any were believers then Jesus said quite plainly to his disciples "In the world you shall have "tribulation."
But he wasn't speaking of The Great Tribulation which is still to come, and will affect the entire world.

What is important here is not "Babylon" whose identity is greatly debated, but rather "the cities and the nations fell," indicating the Second Coming and the nations of the world gathering against Christ.

In Revelation 17 and 18 there are two Babylons. There is a religious Babylon and a political Babylon. The religious Babylon is "apostate Christianity" no doubt represented by the RCC. You seem to agree by your statement below. But chapter 18 speaks of a political Babylon--that which will be the financial center of the world at that time. We don't know where it will be: a rebuilt "Babylon" (unlikely), Rome (possible), or a place like New York (a great financial center). It is speculation and we don't know.

Eventually the Antichrist, the first beast of Rev.13 does away with the false prophet, the second beast of Rev.13.

 

Huh?

Spurgeon. "The Restoration and Conversion of the Jews":

"The meaning of our text, as opened up by the context, is most evidently, if words mean anything, first, that there shall be a political restoration of the Jews to their own land and to their own nationality. And then, secondly, there is in the text, and in the context, a most plain declaration, that there shall be a spiritual restoration, a conversion in fact, of the tribes of Israel."

 

It is dishonest for the pre-trib-dispensationalist to attempt to unite the historic or Covenant Premillennial eschatology with the eschatology of Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, etc.

I have shown repeatedly on this Forum that the dispensationalism of Darby/Ryrie {called classic dispensationalism} believes and teaches that God has two distinct peoples: an earthly people, Israel; and a heavenly people, the Church. That is false doctrine, period. The Bible teaches that GOD has only one people, those whose names are written in the Book of Life, chosen unto salvation in Jesus Christ before he foundation of the world.

Similarly it us false and unBiblical doctrine to teach that the elect of Israel prior to the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ were not redeemed by HIS sacrificial death. Scripture teaches that all redeemed are justified by faith.

 

As I said:

 

Concerning Spurgeon's "Historic Pre-millennialism." Spurgeon was well acquainted with all the views of that time including Darby's. To say with any authority that he directly aligned himself with any one of them would be a mistake.

Dennis Swanson states:

https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj7g.pdf

Spurgeon's forte was not eschatology. He had an evangelist's heart.
Material on eschatology is hard to find compared to material on other topics in his sermons, but there is some.

--This position is radically different than the amil position. There is a definite millennial kingdom, a first and second resurrection, The Second Coming. These are all the same beliefs of the tyypical premillennialist today.

Furthermore:

He identifies Israel has separate from the "Church." Christ will come again. The nation of Israel will recognize Him and receive Him as Messiah.
Christ will reign on this earth for 1,000 years with "the ancients."
How much closer is this to the typical dispensationalist today, and farther from the amil position can one be?

All information was taken from https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj7g.pdf

 

Jerome tries to oppose Calvinism again. But when he posts this link it gives the classic understanding of dispensationalism that both DHK and DC. deny over and over.

DHK seems to believe that the whole Christian world has to adopt DHK explanation ...whatever that is......DC...thinks he is above everyone speaking condescending ly I about Spurgeon. ...of course DC...feels he knows better.....lol

 

Have you read the book?

 

OR......I cannot get online on my computer right now, but open the link Jerome posted and it backs you up 100%.....as well as blessedwife....the link highlights Israel and the church being viewed differently which these revisionists would try and Foist upon the unsuspecting.
It mentions Darby and Scofield just as you have....

 

It also mentions Spurgeon's belief in a one thousand year literal millennial kingdom on this earth, a first resurrection distinct from a second resurrection, the second coming of Christ, Christ coming for his own, and coming before the millennial kingdom as any pre-millennialist would.
He is as far from the position of amil as one could possibly be. If I were in the amil camp, I would have to disown him if I were honest.

 

Thank you Icon.
Its clear to me that I hit a nerve with at least one poster. I counted at least 11 personal attacks that were made, but that is ok. I found them highly amusing, although my husband no so much. We need to be honest about our views and if someone is going to claim that Spurgeon was a Dispensationalist they should be able to back it up with his actual sermons, and or writings. To many people just take claims at face value, instead of looking at the source material.

 

Well any person in the Pre-trib camp will tell you that the passage in Matthew talking about two being int he field with one taken and one left, is not the rapture but the second coming with the one begin taken to judgement.

 

Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mat 24:41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mat 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
Mat 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
Mat 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

It appears this entire passage refers to the rapture, an event that we have no idea when it will take place. For in such an hour as you think not the Son of man comes.