Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I was told about the pre-trib rapture (and then believed it). Then i read the Bible. Then i believed in a Post trib Rapture.I discovered for my self the Bible taught a post trib rapture, and did not know it until I had studied the issue. So my question is, did you learn this from the Bible yourself or did you accept the arguments from others first, reading the pre-trib view into Scripture?
Are you a historic premillennialist?I was told about the pre-trib rapture (and then believed it). Then i read the Bible. Then i believed in a Post trib Rapture.
Greetings, brother!Are you a historic premillennialist?
Funny you say that...Immediately after i was saved someone gave me "Late great Planet Earth."Hal Lindsey taught me! (Took a few years to hose all that out.)
I am slowly going in that direction. The more I study the more I see this position as the most biblical.Greetings, brother!
I would say that i am.
That was my journey...the more i studied, the more i withdrew from pre-trib and (naturally, IMO) came to a historic premill understanding. What really changed my mind was when a friend told me to read 2 Thessalonians V E R Y .....S L O W L Y.I am slowly going in that direction. The more I study the more I see this position as the most biblical.
Genesis 17 was what got me to questioning my amillennial position. The covenant promise made with Abraham also included the land. But were an everlasting covenant(possession).That was my journey...the more i studied, the more i withdrew from pre-trib and (naturally, IMO) came to a historic premill understanding. What really changed my mind was when a friend told me to read 2 Thessalonians V E R Y .....S L O W L Y.
Interesting! For some reason i did not think of you as an amillennialist, but maybe we had interactions before. I've got into a habit of reading the Bible Cover to Cover straight through (Also, jumping around for different reason) and the Holy Spirit (IMO) really illuminates during this time, particularly contradictions in "My own system" of thinking.Genesis 17 was what got me to questioning my amillennial position. The covenant promise made with Abraham also included the land. But were an everlasting covenant(possession).
This is an insulting way to put it: "reading the pre-trib view into Scripture." So the only possible, to you, is the post-trib view. Personally, I am willing to admit that you might be right, even while I hold strongly to the pre-trib position.I discovered for my self the Bible taught a post trib rapture, and did not know it until I had studied the issue. So my question is, did you learn this from the Bible yourself or did you accept the arguments from others first, reading the pre-trib view into Scripture?
When I first became a Christian, I simply accepted the "pre-trib rapture as fact because that was what I was taught. My church taught this view, my friends believed it, and popular "prophecy experts" (e.g. Hal Lindsey) promoted it. It all seemed reasonable, so I held onto that view until about 2007. I've since converted to the Partial Preterist view.I discovered for my self the Bible taught a post trib rapture, and did not know it until I had studied the issue. So my question is, did you learn this from the Bible yourself or did you accept the arguments from others first, reading the pre-trib view into Scripture?
This is an insulting way to put it: "reading the pre-trib view into Scripture." So the only possible, to you, is the post-trib view. Personally, I am willing to admit that you might be right, even while I hold strongly to the pre-trib position.
As for what proves a pre-trib position, as I noted to you on a different thread, the word "church" occurs nowhere in Rev. after ch. 2-3. There is no church on earth during the tribulation period, though there will be people saved.
I also said on another thread, why in the world would the Lord put His bride and body (two metaphors for the church, which He died for) through the tribulation, the worst period of awfulness in the history of the earth when He could take her out? I would certainly rescue my beloved bride for a house fire, a bad guy, or anything else that threatened her. The tribulation is not for the church, but for this wicked world.
There are many other points for my position I could make--but then you will say I am reading my view into Scripture.
I let the Bible tell me what to believe. The first time I listened to the preacher tell us about it, yet I just wasn't sure about it. I did my best to search out all possibilities. The first thing that struck me as odd was this verse;I discovered for my self the Bible taught a post trib rapture, and did not know it until I had studied the issue. So my question is, did you learn this from the Bible yourself or did you accept the arguments from others first, reading the pre-trib view into Scripture?
I heartily agree.There is no clearer example of reading into scripture what is not there then trying to insist that the church is in passages where it doesn't say the church.
I was taught pre trib rapture. My study Bible was the Scofield Reference Bible (1917 notes). The rapture seemed to me to be referred to in Matthew 24:29-31. After the tribulation? I read Walvoord's "The Rapture Question." It was after I read it, personally came to a post trib view.This is an insulting way to put it: "reading the pre-trib view into Scripture." So the only possible, to you, is the post-trib view. Personally, I am willing to admit that you might be right, even while I hold strongly to the pre-trib position.
As for what proves a pre-trib position, as I noted to you on a different thread, the word "church" occurs nowhere in Rev. after ch. 2-3. There is no church on earth during the tribulation period, though there will be people saved.
I also said on another thread, why in the world would the Lord put His bride and body (two metaphors for the church, which He died for) through the tribulation, the worst period of awfulness in the history of the earth when He could take her out? I would certainly rescue my beloved bride for a house fire, a bad guy, or anything else that threatened her. The tribulation is not for the church, but for this wicked world.
There are many other points for my position I could make--but then you will say I am reading my view into Scripture.
An argument from silence does not prove the church was not there. Revelation 14:13 refers to believers dying for the Lord.There is no clearer example of reading into scripture what is not there then trying to insist that the church is in passages where it doesn't say the church.
I don't see how in the world anyone could take that passage as the Rapture. The whole world sees Jesus then, which is not any definition of the Rapture that I know of.I was taught pre trib rapture. My study Bible was the Scofield Reference Bible (1917 notes). The rapture seemed to me to be referred to in Matthew 24:29-31. After the tribulation? I read Walvoord's "The Rapture Question." It was after I read it, personally came to a post trib view.
Sure it does. The Bible is very specific when it teaches church, clearly using the Greek word ekklesia, such as in Matt. 16 & 18, Acts 2, 1 Cor. 12-14, Eph. 4, etc. The Bible always uses the term "church" when teaching about the church. But even if that were not so, tell me how anything in Revelation after Ch. 3 refers to a genuine church in any way? (Maybe you need to define your term "church" for me.) All of the usages of "church" in Ch. 2-3 are genuine local assemblies of Jesus in named cities. Where is that elsewhere in Revelation?An argument from silence does not prove the church was not there.
As for Revelation 14:13, of course it refers to believers dying for the Lord. I believe many will believe in Christ during the Tribulation and die for Him, but that verse does not mention an earthly assembly which can be called a church. In fact, the believers in that verse are not even gathered together. Even so, if they were, simply believers being together does not equal a church, or every Billy Graham Crusade would have been a church, and no one called them that.Revelation 14:13 refers to believers dying for the Lord.
Can you answer this question about this verse?I was taught pre trib rapture. My study Bible was the Scofield Reference Bible (1917 notes). The rapture seemed to me to be referred to in Matthew 24:29-31. After the tribulation? I read Walvoord's "The Rapture Question." It was after I read it, personally came to a post trib view.
An argument from silence does not prove the church was not there. Revelation 14:13 refers to believers dying for the Lord.
I was taught pre trib rapture. My study Bible was the Scofield Reference Bible (1917 notes). The rapture seemed to me to be referred to in Matthew 24:29-31. After the tribulation? I read Walvoord's "The Rapture Question." It was after I read it, personally came to a post trib view.
An argument from silence does not prove the church was not there. Revelation 14:13 refers to believers dying for the Lord.
In 1978 moved my church membership from Faith Baptist Church of Canoga Park to Central Baptist Church of Pomona. Both churches taught pre tribualtion rapture. And both churches had in their respective constitutions for membership to be "premillenial" as a statment of faith. In 1983 Faith Baptist church became post trib pre wrath rapture. I had nothing to do with it.And?
So am I to understand believers who went through the tribulation (Revelation 7:9-14; Revelation 14:13; Revelation 20:4) where not of the church?Ok? You never made the case the church is there, neither in rev 14. Just pointing out there are believers is not evidence the church is there. You may believe that but you haven't convinced me.