If God doesn't have a future for the Jews...

[JonC]

The ECF seemed to favor historical premil, so Jope should not use them as a reference to supporting pre trib, but he can use the bible itself for that!

I don't know about all of the nuances, but they did articulate a belief that they were experiencing the Tribulation of Revelation, so it is impossible that they were pre-trib. I do not know of a theologian or historian that suggests otherwise. That doesn't mean they were correct in their theology, but it does mean they were post-trib.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't know about all of the nuances, but they did articulate a belief that they were experiencing the Tribulation of Revelation, so it is impossible that they were pre-trib. I do not know of a theologian or historian that suggests otherwise. That doesn't mean they were correct in their theology, but it does mean they were post-trib.

I agree with yopu on that, so Jope would be better served sticking to the scriptures to prove this, and they are inspired, and ECF were not!

 

[Jope]

All Jews and gentiles saved now under the NC are part also of the AC one!

All Jews and gentiles saved now under the NC are part also of the AC one!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jope]

he can just stay in the scriptures to support that viewpoint, as there was no rapture as pre trib until time of Darby!
Not saying that is a false doctrine, but just that cannot be supported by quoting the ECF!

"This significant Latin manuscript [Codex Amiatinus, ca. 690-716] from England was commissioned by Abbot Ceolfrid of the monasteries of Jarrow and Wearmouth in Northumberland. In the title to Psalm 22 (Psalm 23 in the Vulgate), the following appears: 'Psalm of David, the voice of the Church after being raptured.'..." (Tim LaHaye & Ed Hindson, The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy, p. 317).​

[edited]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

"This significant Latin manuscript [Codex Amiatinus, ca. 690-716] from England was commissioned by Abbot Ceolfrid of the monasteries of Jarrow and Wearmouth in Northumberland. In the title to Psalm 22 (Psalm 23 in the Vulgate), the following appears: 'Psalm of David, the voice of the Church after being raptured.'..." (Tim LaHaye & Ed Hindson, The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy, p. 317).​

Go study some more there, confusing novice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not inspired scripture though!

 

[Jope]

Not inspired scripture though!

Look at what I responded to.

Are you then claiming that Darby is inspired scripture?

Keep track of where the debate is and what is being responded to. What you have just committed is known as a red herring and/or a straw man fallacy. I never claimed that the title of Psalm 22 in that codex was inspired scripture, and that wasn't what I was disproving. I was disproving that Darby was the father of pretribulationalism. Try to stay focused sir.

 

[Jope]

You are not making sense. You seem to indicate that you understand those you quoted believed that the tribulation was a present reality but then argue they were pre-trib. The two do not reconcile.

If you're interested,

 

[JonC]

If you're interested,

I am interested, and will look at the idea.

Although it may have sounded otherwise, I am not anti-predispensationalism or pre-trib. I don't have a hard stance on the issue except that I do enjoy looking at the reasons people held certain views throughout history. There is a shift, for example, between Irenaeus and Origen. There are spans of time (a century), and culture between Martyr and Cyprian. There is the influence of Victorinus. Some, like Origen, introduced a more spiritualized approach. Cyprian presented the Tribulation as a literal and present reality.

My interest is more in looking at what has been taught throughout history and what may have influenced their understanding. I believe that the actual letter was received with less mystery by the original audience, but it is clear that at least by the time of Irenaeus (without any question Cyprian) the view was that the Church was experiencing the actual Tribulation of Revelation. From the late 3rd century onward (perhaps influenced by Victorinus) speculation grew about the identity of the anti-Christ. It's an interesting topic.

So my argument was never against your position. It was against your statement that the three early church writers you mentioned held to a pre-tribulation view because, quite simply, they did not.Cyprian left no wiggle room for pre-trib (he was firm that the Tribulation of Revelation applied to those living at the time he wrote the document you quoted). This excludes the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture (which is how I've been defining pre-trib).

 

[Yeshua1]

I am interested, and will look at the idea.

Although it may have sounded otherwise, I am not anti-predispensationalism or pre-trib. I don't have a hard stance on the issue except that I do enjoy looking at the reasons people held certain views throughout history. There is a shift, for example, between Irenaeus and Origen. There are spans of time (a century), and culture between Martyr and Cyprian. There is the influence of Victorinus. Some, like Origen, introduced a more spiritualized approach. Cyprian presented the Tribulation as a literal and present reality.

My interest is more in looking at what has been taught throughout history and what may have influenced their understanding. I believe that the actual letter was received with less mystery by the original audience, but it is clear that at least by the time of Irenaeus (without any question Cyprian) the view was that the Church was experiencing the actual Tribulation of Revelation. From the late 3rd century onward (perhaps influenced by Victorinus) speculation grew about the identity of the anti-Christ. It's an interesting topic.

So my argument was never against your position. It was against your statement that the three early church writers you mentioned held to a pre-tribulation view because, quite simply, they did not.Cyprian left no wiggle room for pre-trib (he was firm that the Tribulation of Revelation applied to those living at the time he wrote the document you quoted). This excludes the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture (which is how I've been defining pre-trib).

I have done some research into the eschatological stances of the ECF, and can see with some confidence that many held to historical premil, some A mil, none reallyy with Pre trib view!

 

[Yeshua1]

Look at what I responded to.

Are you then claiming that Darby is inspired scripture?

Keep track of where the debate is and what is being responded to. What you have just committed is known as a red herring and/or a straw man fallacy. I never claimed that the title of Psalm 22 in that codex was inspired scripture, and that wasn't what I was disproving. I was disproving that Darby was the father of pretribulationalism. Try to stay focused sir.

None really held to pre trib rapture, that was a distinct focus of Darby!

 

[Jope]

My interest is more in looking at what has been taught throughout history and what may have influenced their understanding. I believe that the actual letter was received with less mystery by the original audience, but it is clear that at least by the time of Irenaeus (without any question Cyprian) the view was that the Church was experiencing the actual Tribulation of Revelation.

Could you provide some references to this belief?

I found some references in Cyprian's Epistles and Treatises, that he believed all believers experience tribulation (pretribulational dispensationalists today believe this too), but not specifically the great tribulation of the apocalypse.

"Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine or nakedness, or peril, or sword? (Rom. 8:35) None of these things can separate believers, nothing can tear away those who are clinging to His body and blood" (The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle VII, 5)

"Let each one of us pray God not for himself only, but for all the brethren, even as the Lord has taught us to pray, when He bids to each one, not private prayer, but enjoined them, when they prayed, to pray for all in common prayer and concordant supplication. If the Lord shall behold us humble and peaceable; if He shall see us joined one with another; if He shall see us fearful concerning His anger; if corrected and amended by the present tribulation, He will maintain us safe from the disturbances of the enemy. Discipline hath preceded; pardon also shall follow" (The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle VII, 7)

"When, therefore, weakness and inefficiency and any destruction seize us, then our strength is made perfect; then our faith, if when tried it shall stand fast, is crowned; as it is written, “The furnace trieth the vessels of the potter, and the trial of tribulation just men.” (Sirach 27:5) This, in short, is the difference between us and others who know not God, that in misfortune they complain and murmur, while adversity does not call us away from the truth of virtue and faith, but strengthens us by its suffering" (The Treatises of Cyprian, Treatise VII, 13)​

Epistle XV, 2; Epistle XX, 2; Treatise IX, 12-13; Treatise XI; etc.

In Epistle XXI, section 2, Cyprian even links the tribulation experienced by Christians to that meted out by the Roman emperors, but never mentions the apocalypse of John. In Epistle XXV, section 4 Cyprian references a verse in the apocalypse, Ch. 3 verse 21, viz. the one who overcomes will be granted regal rights, to spur on the persecution suffered by Christians, but this is a really sloppy foundation for your position, because he also references Romans 8:35, and present day dispensationalists don't deny that Revelation 3:21 is speaking to Christians today.

In Treatise XI, On the Exhortation to Martyrdom, section 11, at the end of his sermon on persevering through tribulation experienced by every saint, referencing saints in old testament times, Cyprian references the apocalypse, Rev. 7:9-15, as referring to Christian martyrs, but he never explicitly states that his audience, or himself, were the Christian martyrs of Rev. 7:9-15 (which is what you are claiming). I do believe that the ekklesia will exist on earth in the 70th week of daniel and that the saints in the 70th week of daniel will be Christians. And even if I didn't believe this, Cyprian's explicit pretribulationalism quote(s), as I have referenced in the OP (of the other thread), cannot be ignored. Not to mention the fact that probably most modern dispensationalists would also see these Revelation 7:9-15 tribulation saints as Christians, but just not part of the ekklesia.

In Treatise XII, Third Book, section 6, in another sermon on the same subject, he never references the apocalypse. In section 16 of the same reference, he mentions the apocylpse, but again, never explicitly states that he or his audience were the Christians experiencing the tribulation mentioned, as you claimed.

If you are going to argue that his reference to the apocalypse proves that he believed that his audience was experiencing the great tribulation of the apocalypse, the 70th week of Daniel, then you also must claim that Cyprian believed that his audience was the persecuted Abel, Zacharias the martyr-priest, David, Elijah and etc. This is the context in which he referenced the apocalypse.

As for Iranaeus, I couldn't find anything that states what you claimed.

 

[Jope]

There is a shift, for example, between Irenaeus and Origen.

Yes. This doesn't somehow negate or erase the OP quotes though.

Edit: OP quotes of the other thread, they're the same quotes referenced though, and you get the point.

There are spans of time (a century), and culture between Martyr and Cyprian.

Again, this doesn't negate or erase the OP quotes.

etc.

 

[Jope]

None really held to pre trib rapture, that was a distinct focus of Darby!

Look at my Iranaeus quote in the OP of the other thread. Roy Zuck's Vital Prophetic Issues states that Darby knew he was restoring the doctrine of the ECF. Iranaeus also explicitly mentions in another text that the translation of Elijah is a prototype of us Christians' translation.

 

[Yeshua1]

Look at my Iranaeus quote in the OP of the other thread. Roy Zuck's Vital Prophetic Issues states that Darby knew he was restoring the doctrine of the ECF. Iranaeus also explicitly mentions in another text that the translation of Elijah is a prototype of us Christians' translation.

So that would make it one ECF, but solid majority were still either His pre Mil or A Mil, good news is that NONE if them were infallible, so pre trib still a viable option!

 

[Jope]

So that would make it one ECF, but solid majority were still either His pre Mil or A Mil, good news is that NONE if them were infallible, so pre trib still a viable option!

What the....

You haven't been paying any attention to what's going on have you. My quotes show that historic premillennialism is poor scholarship. Read them again.

And do you actually believe that the solid majority of the ECF were amillennial?? You need to read some more. I don't know of any Covenant Amillennialist or Dispensational Premillennialist that would argue this. Probably because there's no evidence to support this whatsoever. Even prominent Amillennialists note that the primitive church was premillennial, and it wasn't until Origen and Augustine (3rd, 4th century) that their view came along.

 

[Jope]

None really held to pre trib rapture, that was a distinct focus of Darby!

In Writings of Tertullian, Part Second, Anti-Marcion, V, Chap. IV, Tertullian says that the assumption of a body, by God, is possible. Not to mention the assumption of Mary, which began to prevail in the fifth century (M. B. Riddle, Apocrypha of the New Testament, Part I, IV). I know this isn't specifically pretrib rapture, the closest and earliest you'll probably find is Iranaeus. Looking into Pseudo-Ephraim (who is later, 7th century I believe) would not be an unfruitful endeavor. And there's more evidence, but I gtg.

Peace out yesh

 

[Yeshua1]

In Writings of Tertullian, Part Second, Anti-Marcion, V, Chap. IV, Tertullian says that the assumption of a body, by God, is possible. Not to mention the assumption of Mary, which began to prevail in the fifth century (M. B. Riddle, Apocrypha of the New Testament, Part I, IV). There's more evidence, but I gtg.

Peace out yesh

Just saying that the concept known as the rapture per say was established by darby!

 

[Yeshua1]

What the....

You haven't been paying any attention to what's going on have you. My quotes show that historic premillennialism is poor scholarship. Read them again.

And do you actually believe that the solid majority of the ECF were amillennial?? You need to read some more. I don't know of any Covenant Amillennialist or Dispensational Premillennialist that would argue this. Probably because there's no evidence to support this whatsoever. Even prominent Amillennialists note that the primitive church was premillennial, and it wasn't until Origen and Augustine (3rd, 4th century) that their view came along.

I stated that the ECF were a varied lot, many held to prmil, others to A mil!

 

[Jope]

I stated that the ECF were a varied lot, many held to prmil, others to A mil!

...So you believe that (isolated) 3rd century Origen, who taught other heresies, is ECF then?

 

[Jope]

Just saying that the concept known as the rapture per say was established by darby!

I edited after you replied.

Iranaeus explicitly teaches both pretrib and rapture side by side.