How did you discover the Bible teaches a pre-trib rapture?

I am sorry John, but you have completely missed the point. I was not questioning the point that Jesus was coming in the air or in the clouds. But "to the air" as I was taught while I was in the Brethren. Which is of course a great distortion of the scripture.

• 1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

You will see that it says the Lord will descend from heaven. The Brethren say he will then ascend back to heaven, but of course the scripture doesn't say that. He will descend amd we meet him in the air. He is still descending, we will return with him. I have had this conversation with some on an IFB forum. They say exactly the same as the Brethren, he is coming TO the air, and insisting that is what the scripture says. That is why I call them "Neo Brethren"

 

Our previous church did not have a policy on prophecy. From time to time we had a Brethren preacher. The last Brethren man we who preached there spoke on

• Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

He said that Jesus was speaking to Jews so this coming will only be to the Jews, Christians would not be there. This was not a teaching I heard while I was in the Brethren. We were taught the there were to be two comings, first for the saints, the second with the saints. The former teaching adds a third coming which is neither.
Afterwards I asked him where the church was at this time. He said "In heaven" He then turned on his heel and stormed off.

Of course Jesus was speaking to Chtistians.

 

Yes I was taught that also in the PB.

It it is to be secret, Paul; chose an odd way to describe it.

• 1 Thess 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Q. When will the saints rise according to scripture?

• John 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
• John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
• John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
• John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day..
• John 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

A. The last day.

Q. When will the judgement ne according to scripture?

• John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

A. The last day

 

Precisely.

The case of deciding between pre, mid, pre-wrath, and posttrib is difficult. I've done some of that here, but don't have time to do a complete study (which I have done in the past). At least I've given you the benefit of the doubt instead of, like you, intimating that the pretrib position is "reading into" Scripture what is not there.

That's your position and you're sticking to it! At least you're consistent, I guess.

None of these passages use the term "dead in Christ," which only occurs in 1 Thess. 4:13 (the Rapture). So what are you trying to prove here? You certainly haven't proven the post-trib position.

Well yes, of course. What are you trying to say?

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

29 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

 

Awesome passage. Praise the Lord. I'm looking forward to that trumpet. So? Simply because there is a sound does not mean something is not secret. I mean, really.

Do you have a specific point here? Or is everyone supposed to read your mind to get your definition of the "last day"?

 

The please express yourself better. Your post read exactly like what I've seen of preterism. Are you a preterist?

First of all, maybe your Brethren friends never proved that Jesus would then go back up, but then you have not proven that He will then come to earth in this passage. Paul did not say anything there about Christ coming to earth, only that we will meet Him in the air.

Now, the Greek preposition for "in the air" is the word eis, which indicates a direction, often translated "into." So the direction of the saints in this verse is up, but there is no indication in the grammar of the verse to indicate a return to the earth, or "down."

According to the Friberg Anlex lexicon, eis is a "preposition with the accusative into, in; (1) spatially, denoting motion toward a place, after verbs of going, sending, moving to, toward, into (MT 9.7)" (accessed through BibleWorks 9). And so, what in the world would be the purpose of the saints going into the sky if not to continue in that direction back to Heaven (the New Jerusalem) with the Lord Jesus Christ? "Okay, everyone, let's all fly up then down again, just for fun."

As for your "neo-Brethren" term, it's not historically accurate. Baptists did not begin adhering to dispensationalism through any Brethren influence, but through the influence of Scofield's reference Bible. Scofield was "ordained to the Congregational ministry in 1882" (Elgin Moyer, Who Was Who in Church History, p. 368). I dare you to prove that Scofield followed any Brethren theologian, including Darby. In fact, I would argue that later Brethren men like H. A. Ironside followed Scofield the Congregationalist rather than Darby.

 

Yes, I should have been clearer, depends if you see the term elect in that passage as referring to Christians in general, or to the remnant Jews saved out at end times...

 

Could still be a mid or a post trib timing here though!

 

Mid maybe. But post-trib? What in the world would be the purpose of Jesus stopping in midair and having us come up to Him and then descend to the earth again? It simply doesn't make any theological sense.

 

I was taught the Pre-Trib doctrine when I was first saved and later called to preach. I believed and preached it for the first 30 years of my ministry. The problem I have with it as there is no direct reference that teaches it but is all built on a straw man.

I am now Post Trib but I do not make it a test of fellowship. The area of churches I used to be from all believe and teach Pre Trib and will look down on any that have a different view. Some make it a test of fellowship, others will let you preach as long as you don't preach against it.

What changed my mine the most is I believe Christ meant the last day three times in John 6, Paul meant the last trump in 1 Cor 15. The rapture is not an event in and of itself, but happens at the event, Parousia, coming of the Lord. Immediately after the tribulation is when the Lord said He would come.

I believe His coming is literal just as He was taken up, He will come back in the same manner, a glorified resurrected body. I teach and preach that Matthew 24 & 25 includes church saints as the Lord started His church during His ministry.

God Bless.

Steve

 

The time of the wrath of God would though seem to be mid point on, as that is when the Antichrist does his war on organized religions and gets set up as God!

 

This could be Jesus though coming for His own and then returning to set up His kingdom reigned here upon the earth!

 

I just see the same Greek term used through the NT though referring to His appearing, His coming, His unveiling etc!

 

Many times what is being seen as being Dispy theology would not be the mainstream one, as think the majority one is the dominant position held today.

 

No I am not a preterist, although i have preterist friends on here, Preterism was invented by the Jesuits to counter the reformation and pre reformation teachings that the papacy is Antichrist, Futurism was promoted by the Jesuits for the same reason.

Futurism has become the main anti reformation teaching and as such has become the main ally and promoter of the RCC.

So if Paul had said the coming woul be secret and you taught that it will be the loudest fanfare in history you would say that is OK.

There can only be one last day, just as there can only be one first day in Genesis. If the saints are raised on the last day and the judgement is on the last day there can be no days after that, only Eternity, just as before the first day there was only Eternity.

 

The wrath of God will be the judgement.

 

Philip Mauro was one of the early US dispensationalists although he saw the error of that teaching and left the movement His writings are preserved on the Philip Mauro Archive, on the preterist site, although I do not consider him to be a preterist as he still seemed to believe the Antichrist was future. The site has some of his early books when he was a dispensationalist.

In His Gospel of the Kingdom. he wrote

• As regards the origin of the system: the beginnings thereof and its leading features are found in the writings of those known as "Brethren" (sometimes called "Plymouth Brethren," from the name of the English city where the movement first attracted attention) though it is but fair to state that the best known and most spiritual leaders of that movement--as Darby, Kelly, Newberry, Chapman, Mueller and others, "whose names are in the Book of Life" " never held the "Jewish" character of the Kingdom preached by our Lord and John the Baptist, or the "Jewish" character of the Gospels (especially Matthew), or that the Sermon on the Mount is "law and not grace" and pertains to a future "Jewish" kingdom.
• 
  
• From what I have been able to gather by inquiry of others, (who were "in Christ before me") the new system of doctrine we are now discussing was first brought to the vicinity of New York by a very gifted and godly man, Mr. Malachi Taylor, (one of the "Brethren") who taught it with much earnestness and plausibility. That was near the beginning of the present century, either a little before or a little after. And among those who heard and were captivated by it (for truly there is some strange fascination inherent in it) was the late Dr. C. I. Scofield, who was so infatuated with it that he proceeded forthwith to bring out a new edition of the entire Bible, having for its distinctive feature that the peculiar doctrines of this new dispensationalism are woven into the very warp and woof thereof, in the form of notes, headings, subheadings and summaries. There is no doubt whatever that it is mainly to this cleverly executed work that dispensationalism owes its present vogue. For without that aid it doubtless would be clearly seen by all who give close attention to the doctrine, that it is a humanly contrived system that has been imposed upon the Bible, and not a scheme of doctrine derived from it. Gospel of the Kindom 1927

To say that Scofield was not influenced by Darby is like saying Darby did not get the teaching from Edward Irving, or that Irving did not get a lot of his teaching from the Jesuit Lacunza, whose book Irving translated from Spanish,

 

Um, if you are not a futurist, then you are by definition a preterist. Please make up your mind.

Now you are adding words to what Paul said and what I said. I won't go there.

What, then, do you do with the 8 times the Scripture uses the phrase "last days"?

I sense that are studying the wrong sources. You are getting definitions wrong and historical facts wrong. I would recommend some books for you, but I'm not sure you would heed me.

 

It's a common misconception that Preterism was invented centuries after the Apostles lived. There is strong evidence that this view of eschatology has been around since the beginning of Christianity. I highly recommend "The Early Church and the End of the World" by Gary DeMar and Francis X. Gumerlock. Even if you don't agree with this view, it shows that this isn't a new doctrine.

On the other hand, I totally agree that the modern "futurist" view was invented around 1830 by Darby. If I remember correctly, you do not believe this view to be correct either.