Baptist Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead

[Yeshua1]

There is a national Israel but within that nation there was always a group that were the true believers; Jacob, Joseph, Judah, Moses, Samuel, King David, the 7000 the prophet Elijah mentioned, and thousands more, those whom the Apostle Paul called "the Elect". All these constitute spiritual Israel. Beyond these there are all the faithful typified by those mentioned in Hebrews 11! The Apostle Paul tells us:

Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

There is only one Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of which the Apostle Paul says: 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. And Paul says that Gospel was preached to Abraham, and Scripture tells us that Abraham believed and it was accounted to him for righteousness!.



No not correct. Read the previous post and the OP for the correct answer!

So you would have the Church here on earth BEFORE the messiah/head over her came, and before Day Of pentacost?

How can there be the Church without the founding Apostles and Mesiah here as of yet?

 

[OldRegular]

So you would have the Church here on earth BEFORE the messiah/head over her came, and before Day Of pentacost?

How can there be the Church without the founding Apostles and Mesiah here as of yet?

Then please tell all how those in the Old Testament were saved!

I would simply remind you of that passage of Scripture:

Revelation 13:8. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

 

[RLBosley]

My understanding is that the Church as a visible entity, a distinct assembly of redeemed believers in the Lord, was not in existence until Pentecost. The nation of Israel was largely unbelieving, but the remnant who believed were saved by the then future atonement of the Messiah just as we are saved by his atonement.

So while it is anachronistic to call them the Church, it isn't necessarily inaccurate either. Particularly in light of the fact that it was always God's predetermined plan to sacrifice his Son.

 

[OldRegular]

My understanding is that the Church as a visible entity, a distinct assembly of redeemed believers in the Lord, was not in existence until Pentecost. The nation of Israel was largely unbelieving, but the remnant who believed were saved by the then future atonement of the Messiah just as we are saved by his atonement.

So while it is anachronistic to call them the Church, it isn't necessarily inaccurate either. Particularly in light of the fact that it was always God's predetermined plan to sacrifice his Son.

Your understanding of the Church is that of many, if not most, on this Forum. I also believe that Scripture speaks of the Church as a local body of believers. However, I also believe that Scripture sometimes speaks of the Church in a much broader sense, the total number of the redeemed {Matthew 16:18; Acts 20:28; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 1:21, 22; Revelation 18:23; 21:2; 22:17}. That belief is consistent with The BF&M definition of the Church.

 

[RLBosley]

Your understanding of the Church is that of many, if not most, on this Forum. I also believe that Scripture speaks of the Church as a local body of believers. However, I also believe that Scripture sometimes speaks of the Church in a much broader sense, the total number of the redeemed {Matthew 16:18; Acts 20:28; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 1:21, 22; Revelation 18:23; 21:2; 22:17}. That belief is consistent with The BF&M definition of the Church.

I agree that the Church is the total number of the redeemed from all ages. But the Church as we know it, the body of believers under the New Covenant, had a historic beginning at Pentecost. So the OT believers were, arguably, not properly the church in their day, but they are included now, post-Pentecost.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree that the Church is the total number of the redeemed from all ages. But the Church as we know it, the body of believers under the New Covenant, had a historic beginning at Pentecost. So the OT believers were, arguably, not properly the church in their day, but they are included now, post-Pentecost.

That is why there has always been a debate on just when the OT believers get their resurrection form God...

And the Church did start at pentacost, or during the times of Christ/Apostles, so no way it existed in the wilderness under say moses!

 

[OldRegular]

That is why there has always been a debate on just when the OT believers get their resurrection form God...

They are resurrected at the return of Jesus Christ as are all believers as well as unbelievers {John 5:28, 29}.

And the Church did start at pentacost, or during the times of Christ/Apostles, so no way it existed in the wilderness under say moses!

The Church exists in and through the Lord Jesus Christ and so is a distinctive New Testament reality [New Geneva Bible, page 1864]. However, the Church, as a people of the promised New Covenant [Jeremiah 31:31-33] which was instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ [Matthew 26:28, 1 Corinthians 11:25, Hebrews 8:6-13], who, as the incarnate God, is the promised seed of Abraham [Galatians 3:16] and the promised Messiah [John 4:25,26], is a continuity of spiritual Israel, God’s covenant people of the Old Testament. The predominant teaching of the Church since Pentecost is that God has only one people and that the New Testament Church is the Israel of God, the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. As has been noted on previous occasions The Baptist Faith and Message adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, Georgia on June 14, 2000 writes of the Church in Section VI as follows: The New Testament speaks also of the Church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

The 11th chapter of Hebrews tells us that the Old Testament Saints considered themselves strangers and pilgrims on earth and vividly portrays their longing to see that city whose builder and maker is God. That city is the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, the general assembly and Church of the Firstborn [Hebrews 12:22-24], and.the chaste virgin bride of Jesus Christ [2 Corinthians 11:2].

 

[DHK]

The Church exists in and through the Lord Jesus Christ and so is a distinctive New Testament reality [New Geneva Bible, page 1864]. However, the Church, as a people of the promised New Covenant [Jeremiah 31:31-33] which was instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ [Matthew 26:28, 1 Corinthians 11:25, Hebrews 8:6-13], who, as the incarnate God, is the promised seed of Abraham [Galatians 3:16] and the promised Messiah [John 4:25,26], is a continuity of spiritual Israel, God’s covenant people of the Old Testament.

My first advice to you is to study up on the theology of Isaac Watts. He was more than just a hymn writer. He was a theologian. Scofield's dispensationalism could be more accurately attributed to Watts than falsely attributed to Darby. Watts lived well before either one of them.

More importantly, however, is your concept of "church." The word is ekklesia, and must be translated "assembly."
That makes your definition of universal church impossible and shoots your theory of "the church" being an extension of Israel" in the foot. The concept is nonsense and foolishness.
Consider:
Paul wrote 13 epistles. Each one of them was to a local church or a pastor of a local church.
He went on 3 missionary journeys and in that time established over 100 local churches.
God ordained the local church as one of His institutions. It is the God-ordained institution out of which He works today, and blesses today.

There is no such thing as an invisible church, that monster that you refer to as "The Church." How can it be? The word is ekklesia. It means assembly--all the time. There is no esoteric, invisible, universal, undefinable, purposeless and meaningless "Church." It doesn't exist and is not in Scripture. If you read your "beloved" Darby translation you will find that every time ekklesia is found, he rightly translates the word "assembly." There would be a lot less confusion in ecclesiology if all our translations did the same.

Since there is no universal church, there can be no "Church" being an extension of Israel. That is obvious. Your doctrine fails on that one point alone. "Churches" and Israel are separate entities and always have been.

"The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem" began on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. It clearly says in verse 41: They that heard the word were baptized and added to the ekklesia (local assembly).
--They then assembled together and were taught of the apostles doctrine, prayed, broke bread, etc.
--And the Lord added to their assembly such as should be saved. This was the local church at Jerusalem. There was no other church. This was not an extension of Israel. In fact the very ones that Peter was preaching to were Israelites, some of whom were the exact ones that had crucified Christ--the Sanhedrin. They were present that day. Israel existed alongside the churches.

The predominant teaching of the Church since Pentecost is that God has only one people and that the New Testament Church is the Israel of God, the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.

That is probably what you would like us to believe. It is more your opinion than anything else. I highly doubt that it is the predominant teaching of Baptists. It is not the predominant teaching of "The Church" since no such thing exists.
But local churches do exist, and they are all independent of each other. Which church or churches made up the 1689 London Confession Faith, or was that composed primarily of Spurgeon? If so that is representative of just one man, not the majority of Baptists.

As has been noted on previous occasions The Baptist Faith and Message adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, Georgia on June 14, 2000 writes of the Church in Section VI as follows: The New Testament speaks also of the Church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

Do you really think that these few documents speak for the majority of Baptists? Really?

The 11th chapter of Hebrews tells us that the Old Testament Saints considered themselves strangers and pilgrims on earth and vividly portrays their longing to see that city whose builder and maker is God. That city is the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, the general assembly and Church of the Firstborn [Hebrews 12:22-24], and.the chaste virgin bride of Jesus Christ [2 Corinthians 11:2].

"the heavenly Jerusalem." What is it speaking of? It is not speaking of the OT. It is speaking of a time to come.
Every believer is "heavenly." We are on a journey to a "heavenly Jerusalem." Some have already reached there; we are still pilgrims and strangers traveling through this foreign land. Someday we will all be assembled together in heaven, but we are not assembled today. There is no general assembly now. There will be sometime in the future after the resurrection takes place, but not now. You need to do some more study on this scripture.

 

[Tom Butler]

I generally agree with DHK regarding his view of the church as a visible assembly.

I part company with him regarding the timing of the establishment of the church. I hold that it existed before Pentecost, founded by Jesus Himself during His earthly ministry.

I agree with DHK that there is no such thing as a universal, invisible church. Such an entity has no reason for existence. The gospel message, the ordinances, and the Great Commission were given to local assemblies.

Hmmm, are we getting off track from the OP, or does any of this have relevance to the subject?

 

[OldRegular]

I generally agree with DHK regarding his view of the church as a visible assembly.

I part company with him regarding the timing of the establishment of the church. I hold that it existed before Pentecost, founded by Jesus Himself during His earthly ministry.

I agree with DHK that there is no such thing as a universal, invisible church. Such an entity has no reason for existence. The gospel message, the ordinances, and the Great Commission were given to local assemblies.

Hmmm, are we getting off track from the OP, or does any of this have relevance to the subject?

Of course the Southern Baptist Convention disagrees with you as I do. The Church is spoken of by the Apostle John as the Bride of Jesus Christ. Is there one Bride of Jesus Christ or are there many. The Apostle John calls the Church the New Jerusalem. Is there one New Jerusalem or many.

I certainly reject the concept of the universal Church like that of the Roman Catholics, however, there is a total body of those redeemed, both on earth and in Heaven. I believe there are Scripture that refer to that body. In Acts we read: And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.{Acts 2:47} Now the local body is going to have members who are not saved. Someone added them to the local body, the local church. Was it Jesus Christ? I think not.

I would also note that the word "ekklesia" means "a calling out". Strong gives that as the primary meaning! Again it is obvious that not all members of the local body are "called out"!

 

[DHK]

Of course the Southern Baptist Convention disagrees with you as I do. The Church is spoken of by the Apostle John as the Bride of Jesus Christ. Is there one Bride of Jesus Christ or are there many. The Apostle John calls the Church the New Jerusalem. Is there one New Jerusalem or many.

Terminology is very important.
All believers make up the bride. Where does John call "the church" the Bride? In Revelation we see Christ addressing 7 churches.
Here are the facts about the word "church" in the book of Revelation:
The word "church" is used seven times, all in chapters 2 and 3 referring to 7 actual historical churches.
The word "churches" is used 12 times, 11 of which are mentioned in chapters 1-3, none of which describe a so-called universal church.
The very last mention of the word "churches" in the NT is:
Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
--There is no universal church. John never referred to "the Church" as the Bride. However the Bride is composed of all NT believers.
There is no "universal church."
There will be a "Heavenly Jerusalem," or "New Jerusalem" for all believers NT and OT.

I certainly reject the concept of the universal Church like that of the Roman Catholics, however, there is a total body of those redeemed, both on earth and in Heaven. I believe there are Scripture that refer to that body. In Acts we read: And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.{Acts 2:47} Now the local body is going to have members who are not saved. Someone added them to the local body, the local church. Was it Jesus Christ? I think not.

That body is the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem. It had its foundation in Acts chapter one.
Look at why they were added (verse 41 and 47)
Acts 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
--It doesn't say that the number of people or even believers were 120, but the number of "names," indicating some kind of membership roll, or at least a record of those who were in attendance. Then in verses 41 and 47 they were added to this number. They were not added to some mysterious, unknowable, undefinable, invisible, universal church. There is just no such thing in Scripture.

I would also note that the word "ekklesia" means "a calling out". Strong gives that as the primary meaning! Again it is obvious that not all members of the local body are "called out"!

The derivation of a word does not give its meaning. It only helps give extra information.
Does Sunday mean that you worship the sun on that day, or that you worship the moon on Monday. Yet that is the derivation of those words: Sunday, Monday.
What is your real first name. Look up the meaning of it, that is, where it comes from, its derivation. It probable "means" quite a bit different than what you think or what defines you as a person.

Ek (out of) kalew (to call) = to call out. Helpful information, but not the meaning.
The meaning of ekklesia is ASSEMBLY, all the time.
It is correctly translated here:
Acts 19:39 But if ye inquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.

 

[OldRegular]

The Apostle Paul calls the Church the Bride: 2 Corinthians 11:2. For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

I would also note that one of the doctrines of dispensationalism is that the Church is the Bride at the Marriage of the Lamb:

The Marriage Supper of the Lamb

by Thomas Ice


"Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready." And it was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. And he said to me, " Write, ' Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.' " And he said to me, " These are true words of God." {Revelation 19:7- 9}

Recently at a prophecy conference I was ask if there was a difference in the Bible between the marriage of the bride (the church) to the Lamb and the marriage supper of the Lamb. I answered that I believe that Scripture indicates that there is a difference in these things and that they are two events that will take place at two different times in history. Let me show you why I think this way.

The Marriage of the Lamb
According to Revelation 19:7, the bride, (which is made up of the corporate and collected members throughout the church age taken to heaven at the rapture), makes herself ready for an impending event. How is the bride or the church made ready? She is made ready by clothing " herself in the fine linen bright and clean," which is said to be " the righteous acts of the saints." This statement means that by this point in history (right before the second coming), the sum total of the bride, the body of Christ, is in heaven and has already gone through the bema judgment where church age believers are to be evaluated for their faithfulness to Christ during this present age (Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10). The result of going through the judgment seat of Christ results in the bride being given fine linen that Revelation 19:8 says, " is the righteous acts of the saints." This is how " His bride has made herself ready." Ready for what? She has made herself ready for the marriage of the Lamb. Thus, within the framework of the symbolism being used in this passage, it means that the marriage (marriage ceremony) takes place right before the second coming.

Later, Revelation 19:14 says, " And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses." Thus, having been newly married to the Lamb, the bride begins her role in history of reigning at the right hand of Christ (Rev. 3:21) by accompanying her new husband in the heavenly accent from heaven on white horses in order to participate in the judgment of Armageddon at the second advent. Arnold Fruchtenbaum further explains as follows:

http://www.raptureready.com/featured/ice/TheMarriageSupperoftheLamb.html

There are other dispensationalists who will teach the same thing! John Walvoord in Major Bible Prophecies writes, page 248:

The church in the New Testament is not pictured as a wife but as a bride awaiting the coming of her husband. {2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:25-27; Rev. 19:6-8} The present age is viewed as a time of preparation for the bride.

 

[DHK]

The Apostle Paul calls the Church the Bride: 2 Corinthians 11:2. For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

First, I will debate you, not Ice or Walvoord. As you say, they are other dispensationalists. I am not interested in what other dispensationalists. say. You are not interested in learning either. Forget about what they say. They don't have the Bible under lock and key. They aren't God's spokesmen for our position.

In 2Cor.11:2 Paul is speaking the the Corinthian Church. Context is first and foremost important.
Secondly, Paul is using a metaphor. It is his metaphor.
Thirdly, Paul started the church. We learn this both from his first letter and from Acts 18. This history you can look up yourself.
He was as a father to them. He prepared them. As new believers in Christ they were as virgins, pure in doctrine. Now they stood in peril.

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

There are some among them that are about to listen to false teachers and are ready to apostatize from the faith. The devil is about to corrupt their minds. There are some that are preaching a false gospel. They are now at the crossroads.

These are false teachers they are about to follow, teachers that have been speaking against Paul to the extent that he must now defend his apostleship, which he now does:
2 Corinthians 11:11 Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth.
2 Corinthians 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

Read the entire chapter. He defends himself as an Apostle. This is where he gives his testimony. He speaks harshly against those that oppose him.

Paul has been their spiritual father preparing these believers and making them ready to meet the Lord. Now some are trying to undo all the work, the time he has invested in them.
Thus when Paul uses this metaphor:

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
--It is Paul that is jealous over the Corinthians with a godly jealousy.
It is Paul that espoused them to one husband. He prepared them.
He prepared them to present them as a chaste virgin to Christ.
Now they are at peril of losing their virginity (not their salvation), being corrupted by false doctrine.

 

[Yeshua1]

I generally agree with DHK regarding his view of the church as a visible assembly.

I part company with him regarding the timing of the establishment of the church. I hold that it existed before Pentecost, founded by Jesus Himself during His earthly ministry.

I agree with DHK that there is no such thing as a universal, invisible church. Such an entity has no reason for existence. The gospel message, the ordinances, and the Great Commission were given to local assemblies.

Hmmm, are we getting off track from the OP, or does any of this have relevance to the subject?

Basically, it seems the debate centers on was the Church just a continuation of israel, and so would be spiritual israel now, or was the New Covenant a brand new relationship that was the Church, between God and man?

 

[OldRegular]

Basically, it seems the debate centers on was the Church just a continuation of israel, and so would be spiritual israel now, or was the New Covenant a brand new relationship that was the Church, between God and man?

You might try reading the New Covenant. You find it in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and repeated in Hebrews 8:6-13:

Jeremiah 31:31-34
31. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Hebrews 8:6-13
6. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11. And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Remarkable is it not.

 

[DHK]

You might try reading the New Covenant. You find it in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and repeated in Hebrews 8:6-13:

Jeremiah 31:31-34
31. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Hebrews 8:6-13
6. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11. And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Remarkable is it not.

Not once is the unbiblical concept of the so-called invisible Church mentioned. God made a covenant with Israel. That is mentioned throughout this passage. (The covenants were given to Israel). The only other covenant, and that which he is describing here is, is the one to individual believers. He washes away our sins. He forgives our sins. He died for our sins. We as individuals, each, trust him as Saviour. It is a personal, not corporate decision. There is no corporate decision here. It is an individual decision to trust Christ. There is no comparison to Israel corporately.
Your idea of the non-existent "the Church" is clearly a false doctrine, that the Bible doesn't teach. This universal "Church" is not even taught in Scripture. You can't even prove that, much less prove that it is an extension of Israel. One false premise leads to another false conclusion.

 

[OldRegular]

Just to remove any confusion about the purpose of the OP!

Throughout history Baptist have generally believed that the return of Jesus Christ will be followed immediately by a resurrection of all the dead, both the ‘redeemed’ and the ‘lost’, and a general judgment. This conclusion is based on information presented in Baptist Confessions of Faith by William L. Lumpkin. Excerpts from the more prominent Baptist Confessions are presented in the following post!

It is important to note that the implications of a general resurrection and judgment are not trivial in today’s theological climate.

A general resurrection and judgment means that there is no ‘secret rapture of the church’ prior to any period of ‘great tribulation’. The Church will remain on earth until they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory [Matthew 24:30, KJV] and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen [Revelation 1:7, KJV]. Whatever tribulation comes before that time the Church will endure just as Jesus Christ taught and just as the history of the Church bears witness. In fact Scripture teaches repeatedly that tribulation is the norm of life for the Saints, the ‘true believers’.

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.

The New Testament also speaks of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

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

If the question be asked: Will the church be raptured before end-time events? it becomes very important to define the church as an entity that is distinct from Israel or saints in general. In prophetic passages concerning the Tribulation, both Israelites and Gentiles are described, and some of them have faith in Christ and form a godly remnant. If they are part of the church, then the church is in the Tribulation, and the whole question as to whether the church goes through the Tribulation becomes moot. Many posttribulationists, in an attempt to establish their own point of view, beg the question at the very beginning by assuming that the church includes saints of all ages. The concept that the church is distinct from Israel is a part of dispensational truth that distinguishes the work of God in the Old Testament under the Mosaic Law, the work of God in the present age as he calls out both Jews and Gentiles to form the church as the body of Christ, and the millennial kingdom in which the saints of all ages participate in various ways but maintain their individual and corporate identity. Hence, the church will be raptured or resurrected, and will reign with Christ in the millennial kingdom, but the saved of Israel as well as the saved of the Gentiles who are not part of the church will also be part of the millennial kingdom. Distinguishing the church from saints of other periods that precede or follow the present age is essential to a correct answer on the pretribulational issue. It is not too much to say that the doctrine of the church, or ecclesiology, determines this aspect of eschatology.

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.

 

[DHK]

RE: Your OP: "Throughout history...Baptist confessions."
Perhaps you should define some terms, like "history," since you haven't gone very far back in your OP.
And "Baptists," since some of us believe they go back as far as the apostles though under different names.
And "confessions," and why they are so important to you. There are other sources of what Baptists believed that are far more ancient than these confessions that are comparatively recent in the light of all history.

 

[OldRegular]

Some people believe that the doctrines of those today called Baptists can be traced back to Apostolic times. I am one of those who believe this to be correct. However, Confessions of Faith identified as Baptist only go back to the 16th Century, the earliest being written by those called Anabaptists. These Confessions were written at a time when those who dissented from the domination of Roman Catholicism were distinguishing their faith from Roman Catholicism.

The London Confession of 1644 was written by English Baptists in part to separate themselves from Anabaptists. I have quoted from some of these Confessions earlier showing a belief in the Biblical teaching of a General Resurrection and Judgment of all the dead.

The 1644 London Baptist Confession of Faith
(1646 Edition)

The first edition was published in 1644 and, whereas the 1689 Baptist Confession is based on the Westminster Confession of Faith, the 1644 Confession is of purely Baptist origin. This second edition "corrected and enlarged" was originally published in 1646.

The CONFESSION OF FAITH,

Of those CHURCHES which are
commonly (though falsly)
called ANABAPTISTS;
http://www.oldschoolbaptist.org/Articles/1644LondonConfessionOfFaith.htm

 

[DHK]

Some people believe that the doctrines of those today called Baptists can be traced back to Apostolic times. I am one of those who believe this to be correct. However, Confessions of Faith identified as Baptist only go back to the 16th Century, the earliest being written by those called Anabaptists. These Confessions were written at a time when those who dissented from the domination of Roman Catholicism were distinguishing their faith from Roman Catholicism.

The London Confession of 1644 was written by English Baptists in part to separate themselves from Anabaptists. I have quoted from some of these Confessions earlier showing a belief in the Biblical teaching of a General Resurrection and Judgment of all the dead.

One cannot conclusively determine from that confession that it was teaching a General Confession. In fact it seems that the opposite was true:

In the main part of the confession the only reference to the resurrection is here:

[FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]

VII.​

And this is life eternal, that we might know Him the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent. And on the contrary, the Lord will render vengeance, in flaming fire, to them that know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]It is hardly definitive, and can be interpreted either way.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]Then right before the conclusion is a quote from scripture concerning the resurrection, which as Dr. Bob pointed out, leaves room for gaps of time. It does not point to one general resurrection:[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]

[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]

LII.​

There shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust, and everyone shall give an account of himself to God, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Acts 24:15; 1 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 14:12. [Matt. 25; Rev. 22:11,12,13,14,15.]

[FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]There is a failure on your part to use this confession to teach one general resurrection. It doesn't.

[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]