End time terminology

There are essentially 4 views, with several variations within each view.

I. Preterist: Believe all or most of Revelation was fulfilled in the past.


II. Historicist: Believe Revelation is a general overview of church history.


III. Idealist: Believe Revelation is just a spiritual picture of good vs. evil.


IV. Futurist: Believe all or most of Revelation will be fulfilled in the future.


That's it, in the simplist of terms.

 

The relation of the physical/spiritual second coming of Jesus
to the physical Millinnial (1,000 years) Kingdom of the Christ
comes in three flavors:

a-millinnial (a-mill) - no physical millinnial kingdom, it
is a deep spiritual truth

pre-millinnial (pre-mill) - the second coming of Jesus
will be prior to the physical Millinnial Kingdom

post-millinnial (pre-mill) - the second coming of Jesus
will be after the physical Millinnial Kingdom

 

Needless to say, there are certain x-mills that can logically
be associated with each Prophetic timing theory:

Preterism can lead to an a-mill doctrine
or a post-mill doctrine; preterism cannot lead to
a pre-mill doctrine

Historicism can lead to any of the three x-mill theories:
a-mill, post-mill, and pre-mil.

Futurism can lead to the Post-mill doctrine or the pre-mill doctrine.
Futurism cannot lead to the a-mill doctrine

Idealism can lead to a-mill doctrine or post-mill doctrine
but not to the pre-mill doctrine.

---------------------------------

You can get to A-mill from any prophetic timing
save Futurism.

You can get to Post-mill from any prophetic timing.

You can get to pre-mill from Historicism
or Futurism; you cannot get to pre-mill from
Preterism nor Idealism.

-------------------------------------
Personally i'm a pretrib, pre-mill, futurist. That is what
the Bible says IMO.

[ January 24, 2005, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]

 

Pre-Triburation Rapture - (Christ comes secretly before the 2nd coming and raptures the church before the tribulation).

Mid-Tribulation Rapture - (Christ comes secretly 3.5 years into a 7 year tribulation period).

Post-Trib Rapture - Christ comes openly just before the 1000 years but after the tribulation (This is the Rev 19 appearing of Christ (Rev 19) that is associated with the first resurrection Rev 20:4-5)


So that makes me Post-Trib, PreMill. I do not believe in a 1000 year reign on earth - I believe that Jesus comes and take the church to heaven as in the promise of John 14. And we are there with Him for 1000 years. After which the New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven.

What about you TP - do you object to the 1000 years listed in Rev 20:5?

Do you find a way to spiritualize them away?

What about the promise of John 14? Do you believe that Christ takes His church away to "BE WITH HIM"?

What about the rapture of 1Thess 4 - do you reject it?

What about New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven to earth AFTER the 1000 years that begin at the second coming - (Rev 21) do you go along with that?

What about the Role of Christ the Creator in Creating the World in Gen 1-2:4 and Exodus 20:8-11 -- do you go along with that?

What do you go along with?

In Christ,

Bob

 

There are three pre-millinnial timing views,
they relate the Tribulation and the rapture/resurrection:

pretribulation (pretrib) - the rapture/resurrection of
the Church will be before the Tribulation Period

mid-tribulation (mid-trib) - the rapture/resurrection of
the Church will be in the middle of the Tribulation Period

post-tribulation (post-trib) - the rapture/resurreciton of
the Church will follow the Tribulation Period

--------------------------------------------------
Needless to say, but these views do not relate to
Preterism nor Idealism for those prophetic timing theories
do not lead dto the pre-mill view.

The historic prophetic timing view cannot lead to the
pretrib theory; the historic prophetic timing view can
lead to eather the mid-trib or the post-trib theories.

Futurism preophetic timing view can lead to any of
the three premillinnila timing views: pretrib, mid-trib,
or post-trib.

 

Your definitions are unfair
and do not represent the viewpoint of those
holding those viewpoints. There is no
such thing as a secret rapture/resurrection.
It is my opinion that if the Lord returned
right now for the pretribulation rapture/resurrection
their would be 3,000 Million resurrections
and 400 Million raptures -- that will be
kind of hard to keep secret from the
5,600 Million people left Behind.
(Though God could do that, were He
so inclined).

So the best i can figure is we are seeing
a strawman being constructed. Recommendation:
don't start arguing against people until
they make a statement of what they believe.
Thank you, sir.

 

Ed's short history of millinnial theory:

The Bible and the Bible writers preached pre-mill.
But it says Christ shall return soon.
About the time that the Church got into bed with
the State (circa 315AD) the prophecy of 2 Peter 3:3
was fulfilled. People started saying that the
Church should take over the world and then
the world would be ready for Jesus to come
and rule over them - i.e. post-millinnial.

About the time the ten metrapoliton sees
excommunicated the Bishop of Rome (AKA: Pope)
in 1054AD (well, the Pope kicked out the Eastern
Orthodox folks also ) the prophecy of
2 Peter 3:3 was fulfilled again. This time the
philosophers began to figure all the Bible was
only understood by the chosen few and all had
a spiritual meaning and no physical meaning,
after all, it had been a long time, and Jesus was
supposed to come back SOON. Anyway, that is
when a-millinnialism begain.

The faithful still believe the pre-millinnial Coming of
Jesus again and hope the pretribulation rapture/resurrection.

 

Funny - but it misdirects.

#1. The point of the "secret rapture" is that it is NOT the visible obvious and world-wide event of Rev 19 -- the Return of Christ.

#2. The term "secret rapture" is not something I made up to beat up on people that believe in it.

#3. "How obvious" it is that people are "missing" -does not change that idea of the "secret rapture".

The point remains - because the idea of "secret rapture" is to avoid saying "The Return of Christd" and to avoid referring to the big event of Rev 19 that happens at when Christ returns.

Well, not in my post.

But I will grant you that that statement of yours might qualify.

BTW - this was not my attempt to argue against the secret rapture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

AS for the history of the premillennial view in America ...

In Christ,

Bob

 

BobRyan: "#2. The term "secret rapture" is not something
I made up to beat up on people that believe in it.//

Yes, i beleive you.
The term "secret rapture" was coined by William Miller (1782-1849)
to cover his error in predicting the return of Jesus in
1844. Jesus didn't return in 1844 cause he had a "secret" coming,
it was said.

Then there are those who believe that all the departing saints
in the rapture will be taken during nuclear blasts. Nobody will
know they are gone or which is taken and which left.
Now that would be "secret"

BobRyan: "BTW - this was not my attempt to argue against the secret rapture."

I don't believe you. You were trying to argue your post-tribualtion
pre-millinnial theories. Which is fine, but at least be fair in
your defintions. Thank you.

BTW, congrads on your 7,000th post, BobRyan!!

 

Thanks for the 7000 note!

Do you have anything like actual documentation that says that William Miller coined the term "Secret Rapture"? I would be very interested to see some proof. As far as I know Miller never taught such a thing not even after 1844.

In fact one of his objections to Adventists was the idea that the 1844 date was still correct.

(Or did you just make that up?)

I stated that my view is post-trib AND premillennial - but I did not address the errors in the other views - I simply state what they are.

And my point about "secret" was just to point out that it is not the Rev 19 visible and obvious return of Christ - which even those who believe in a pre-trib or mid-trib rapture agree with.

I am happy to debate the differences - but you seem intent on debating the common ground.

In Christ,

Bob

 

BobRyan: "I am happy to debate the differences - but you
seem intent on debating the common ground."

DICTIONARY OF PREMILLENNIAL THEOLOGY (Kregel,1996) runs 414 pages
without ever mentioning "secret rapture". I have no idea
what a "secret rapture" is. I am probably wrong about
Miller and the secret rapture, but somebody started it,
possibly one theologically related to William Miller?

Personally i prefer to the rapture/resurrection (by Jesus) event
and the Second Coming of Jesus to destroy the antichrist event.
Both events are like book-ends on the 7-year-Day. SO both events
happen the same day. But they are two events to different purposes.
I understand postribulation premillinnialists can believe in the
two events but that they happen the same 24-hour day
or same 12-hour daylight day, or same 8-hour work day or which
ever of the dozen definitons of day one wishes to use.
I believe the prophetic "day" means "the appropriate time". Some
need to be more literal than that?

 

Is it your claim that the "secret rapture" has no reference at all to the pre or mid-trib rapture teaching?

Really? That is what you believe?

My view is that the Bible ONLY speaks of the return of Christ and of his Appearing - as the same event.

I also believe that the resurrection at the return of Christ mentioned in 1Thess 4 is the first resurrection not the second. Both the first and the second are outlined in Rev 20.

I think the Bible has it right.

In Christ,

Bob

 

One thing I have noticed is that TP starts a thread but then does not actually participate on it much passed the opening post.

What is the objective TP?

In Christ,

Bob

 

BobRyan: "I think the Bible has it right."

I think so also. But you appear to have missed something.

Both the pretribulation rapture/resurrection and
the postribulation remenant resurrection
at the Second Coming of Jesus are part of the first
resurrection denoted in Revelation 20. BTW
Revelation 20 says "first resurrection" not
"first AND ONLY resurrection". To read it "first
and only resurrection" you have to add to scripture
what is NOT there. There is noting about the term
"first" in English nor the word from the Greek
translated "first" which is exclusive.
Revelation 20:4 even mentions two groups of people
in the first resurrection. The ones on thrones are
those raptured/resurrected before the Tribulation period
and the beheaded ones are resurrected after the
Tribulation period.

BobRyan: "My view is that the Bible ONLY speaks of the
return of Christ and of his Appearing - as the same event."

Obviously you cannot tell the difference betweeen what you
say and the viewpoint that there are two different events
that happen at the same 8-hr work day. But there is a
difference. You miss a real exciting hope by not being able
to figure it out.

I'm tired, i'm off to bed.

 

TP

Are you thoroughly confussed now??? Generally man's theism has painted a very complex picture of what God really meant and wanted to be understandable.

 

I once heard an interesting theory about the millenium. The idea was based on the belief that we are only condemned by a rejection of Jesus, and since some have never heard of Him they have no chance to choose one way or another.

So the theory is that the 1000 years will be the time when God allows such people a chance to make a choice. I think the people in mind are those such as the mentally infirm or those who died as infants or before birth.

Anyone else ever hear of this? What do you think?

 

That's similar to Armstrong's view, except that he takes a modified two-point Calvinist view of unconditional election and says that only certain people are called now, the rest are given their "First" real chance to believe at the second resurrection. Nice idea (that actually softened my heart into accepting Christ, since it did away wit5h Hell for all unbelievers!), but not enough scriptural support. They used some OT passage about infants living to 100 or something, and insist "Now is A day of salvation"; meaning "not the only one", but that really has nothing to do with a chance to believe at the Great White Throne.
Meanwhile, the Adventists believe that while the 1000 years is desolate on earth, this is the time when God teaches the saved why their unsaved loved ones will be thrown into the lake of fire when they are resurrected at the end of the 1000 years.

There are also hybrid positions in premilennialism:

Dualism takes preterist fulfillments in the first century as types of greater fulfillments in the future. There are also historicist fulfillments of the Dragon, women and beasts of Ch, 12, 13, and 17. This harmonizes the time elements of propecies ("shortly", -special fulfillments for the generation then living) with the scope elements (the whole world, such as gentile powers are to be judged and subdued; not just OC ISrael).
This I had first heard from Armstrong (though he glossed over the preterist fulfillments and focused on the future), and it seemed to be the best interpretation.

Also, for the trib scenarios, there are two others that deserve mention.
Pre-Wrath, which separates the Seals from the Trumpets and Bowls, with the latter only as the "wrath" of God, and thus the only thing the Church is spared from. I dont really know what the difference is from generic "midtribulationism", (which is the one view I've never studied; perhas it's basically the same) but it seems this view is more developed.

Then there is MID-wrath, which acknowledges that God's "wrath" begins with the mainly humanly carried out trumpets, and are "completed" (Rev.15:1) in the entirely divinely carried out bowls.) So between the trumpets and bowls is the most clear, plain timing of the Rapture, based on the placement of the "Harvest" in Rev.14.

So I'm dualist, mid-wrath.

 

Sadly - there is no reference in all of scripture to a "pretrib rapture resurrection"

However - there is the idea of a rapture+resurrection in 1Thess 4.

And it can be shown that the rapture-resurrection of 1Thess 4 could not be the 2nd resurrection and so MUST be the FIRST resurrection of Rev 20.

(Do I detect a note of agreement??)

What on earth are you talking about? I never argue for "first and only" I argue for "First and SECOND" with the SECOND occuring "AFTER the 1000 years".

Are we "agreeing again?"

Or are you trying to introduced the nonsensical "First-Part I and ...FIRST part-23?" as ideas for "First" which is then followed by the SECOND ???

Something that one certainly does not GET from the text!!

Particularly when FIRST and SECOND are BOTH addressed in the SAME chapter in the SAME context by the SAME author.

In EVERY case of that SECOND follow FIRST and is the NEXT occurance -- not the 25th occurance after FIRST.

(Obvious - I know. But in this part of the discussion your view loses sight of the obvious)
BobRyan: "My view is that the Bible ONLY speaks of the
return of Christ and of his Appearing - as the same event."

In Christ,

Bob