Post tribulation arguments

[revmwc]

Thread successfully high jacked by several folks.

Matthew 24 also shows ample proof of a none post tribulation rapture. But Revelation 19 is still the best argument to prove it is not post trib. The church is in heaven as the Bride who has made herself ready for the marriage. She comes back with Christ in Revelation 19.

Revelation 19
7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Let's look at something to understand it better:[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Here is the process of a marriage in Jesus time.


1. The betrothal process
2. This would be the age in which we currently live
3. A suitable spouse for the bride or Bridegroom was sought out.
4. The church in our day is the Bride which will be suitable for the Bridegroom Christ.
5. The second part of the betrothal was a “prenuptial agreement”
6. The two parties would enter that agreement and sign it before witnesses.
7. Remember Mary was “betrothed” to Joseph, they had entered this stage.
8. Once this had been entered then there would be no sexual relations between them.
9. If either was found in adultery which it would be considered a bill of divorcement would have to be issued.
10. If either party died before the actual ceremony then the other would be considered a widow or widower.
The next step was the Wedding
[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The length of the betrothal was generally a year.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The wedding was a special ceremony you see that is where we are in Revelation 19.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The wedding started with the procession of the groom and his companion’s to the bride’s home that occurred in chapter 4.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The company would then escort the Bride and her companions back to the groom’s home.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Where there would be a special meal prepared.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]A celebration ensued until a written marriage contract was issued.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The couple would then be escorted to a special “bridal chamber”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Where they consummated the marriage.[/FONT]
9. [FONT=&quot]Marriage festivities continued for up to a week.[/FONT]
10. [FONT=&quot]Remember what we see in 1st Peter 3:7-9, [/FONT]7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

So we see that the bride has spent her time in preparation at the grooms home, that is the church raptured and for seven years preparing herself for the wedding, or as in the case of Daniels prophecy the church has been a week, the last week of Daniels 70th in Heaven preparing herself for the wedding while those on earth have been being judged with the wrath of God.

 

[Darrell C]

blessedwife318



Quote:
What hatred? That only anger I sense is from you, toward me.

they project their own hatred on those who respond.

It's not anger to address error.

Quote:
But onto this discussion, if anyone is going to have an honest debate then terms have to be defined.
When the 2 people debating have different definitions of a given word it makes debate impossible.

Quote:
When terms are used, such as Dispensationalism, it only make sense to allow the major proponents and teachers of the view definition stand in a debate.
That would be like someone saying they are a Calvinist but they don’t believe in Pre-destination, and any time someone pointed to Calvin, saying that his views don’t matter but I’m still a Calvinist. It would make no sense to the person they were debating and just cause people to go around in circles as each try to define their terms.

yes..more dishonesty....

You do realize you are saying your quarterback is being dishonest, right? You are quoting her...

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by blessedwife318
The central issue of Dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church.

No...it isn't.


Just because you sit under teachers who are greatly biased and confused, and have muddled your thoughts with junk theology greatly tinged with hatred...doesn't mean the nonsense spouted is relevant to anyone in this thread in this discussion.

What hatred? That only anger I sense is from you, toward me.
But onto this discussion, if anyone is going to have an honest debate then terms have to be defined.
When the 2 people debating have different definitions of a given word it makes debate impossible.
When terms are used, such as Dispensationalism, it only make sense to allow the major proponents and teachers of the view definition stand in a debate.
That would be like someone saying they are a Calvinist but they don’t believe in Pre-destination, and any time someone pointed to Calvin, saying that his views don’t matter but I’m still a Calvinist. It would make no sense to the person they were debating and just cause people to go around in circles as each try to define their terms. 

And I would point out that my point is once again ignored. I have tried to address the issues which are the basis for the conflict that has raged here for years, but to no avail.

Quote:
So you don’t like the way that the major proponents of Dispensationalism define it, that’s fine, but then your issues is with them, not me, because they are the ones teaching these things under that banner that you want to be under

They are stopped right here.....so they attack, OR. you ,me and anyone who points it out.

Stopped? Not one thing said here is true or even applies to the beliefs of what many here believe.

Quote:
Nice word play there. But I did not say Dispensation did I? I said DispensaionaLISM. There is a difference as you well know. But you don’t want to get into Dispensationalism do you?

good catch...they do this all the time..

It's not a good catch, and that was addressed. Why are you not addressing the responses?

Quote:
Well we are getting a little closer now. At least you are giving a partial definition of Dispensationalism here.
No I don’t think that is the central issue, but Ryrie does. And apparently you have an issue with that so I suggest you take that up with Ryrie, not me. I’m just the messenger telling you what top proponents of Dispensationalism think.

exactly right

Not, not exactly right, but contrary to what she has already said...

The central issue of Dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church.

As I said, if you knew what was going on, who was saying what...you wouldn't make blunders like this.

So we have to ask why you are.

Quote:
Ok Great! When there is Scripture bring discussed I will discuss it. There wasn’t in DHK post that I was responding to, just like there is not any in you post to me

.
no there was not!

But there was before the disruption began.

Remember the OP?

Remember all the posts prior to this rabbit trail?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Quote:
Oh I love the snark here. Of course you know what they say when you resort to attacking your opponent.

:laugh:

Same they say about calling a response an attack because it cannot be responded to with reasonable discussion. It is deflection from the points that destroy the proffered views.

Quote:
As far as your guarantee, go for it. Start a tread defending Dispensationalist views. Although given that you have already shown you disagree with some of the major teachings of that view and jumped on me for their views that would be amusing to see.

lol

While your laughing consider the facts: no-one is trying to defend dispensational view...this is something dragged up by BW.

She wanted to debate Dispensationalism while others were clearly discussing the actual topic of the OP.

Quote:
As to your not so veiled attack that I put his views above Scripture, I would point out to you that I was just responding to DHK statement about Spurgeon. He brought him up and I responded in kind. Again if Scripture is presented I would have responded with Scripture. Although since that seems to be your standard where is your Scripture in your response to me?

yep!!!

You can both consult the posts that are on topic. That's where the relevant Scripture is.

And when the discussion is derailed, even then Scripture was offered to address the false charges of the rabbit trail.

Quote:
Ok what does that have to do with anything?

nothing of substance...

So let's see what is "nothing of substance:"

By the way, the post you responded to plainly stated that Spurgeon was a Calvinist.

Ok what does that have to do with anything?

So you feel that thefact that DHK states Spurgeon was a Calvinist, not a dispensational premillennial, as BW implies her her erroneous response...

...is not substantial?

Quote:
Well now we just have one more thing you and I disagree on.
No I have no interest in getting involved in your disagreement with Spurgeon.

lol

This is funny, lol

Quote:
So you don’t think any Jew’s are saved by the Blood of Christ?!?! I would love to see you show that one from the Scripture. Especially since Paul, and Peter, and John, and James were Jews. So do tell how they were saved apart from the Blood of Christ.

foolishness

I agree. What you have apparently missed is this is again a false argument.

After sniveling about semantics she is okay with changing what was said:

Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is.

So you don’t think any Jew’s are saved by the Blood of Christ?!?! I would love to see you show that one from the Scripture. Especially since Paul, and Peter, and John, and James were Jews. So do tell how they were saved apart from the Blood of Christ.

Big difference, which goes to the point of the distinction between Israel and the Church.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Quote:
I’m not saying anything, I’m quoting Spurgeon to show that he cannot be placed inside the same camp as Darby.
But to answer your questions, No not all Jews were or are saved (although some in the Dispensational camp would argue with that, so you might want to take that up with them).
Yes I do understand that. Of course they still needed Atonement, the Book of Hebrews makes that clear. But then again you are the one the just said a few lines up that no Jew was eternally redeemed through the Blood of Christ.

correct

Not correct: another indication of the inability to discern what is said.

In view is not how many Jews among Israel were "saved," but the distinction Hebrews makes that none of them were eternally redeemed.

The statement is again changed from Israel to "No Jew."

Which is another distinctive error made:

Originally Posted by blessedwife318 View Post

Quote:
Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is.

So you don’t think any Jew’s are saved by the Blood of Christ?!?! I would love to see you show that one from the Scripture. Especially since Paul, and Peter, and John, and James were Jews. So do tell how they were saved apart from the Blood of Christ.

Again, this is an attempt to address the false argument constantly presented on this forum, and again...no response to the focal issues.

Quote:
Honestly I don’t even understand what point you are trying to make here (besides the obvious attack which I will give you is slightly ironic given that I don’t understand what you are saying here) I think there might be a typo here but I’m not sure.

no one understands him,lol

On the contrary, many people understand these basic Bible Principles.

But some do not want to, they just want to argue.

Quote:
No the definitions set up by the proponents of Dispensationalism put him there. If you have a problem with their definition take it up with them, not me.

yes

I would point at this point that your posting technique is still sloppy. Not an attack, just the truth. Here we have no idea what is being responded to except your cheerleading.

This is how you are able to continue in a fantasy of being right about something.

You should ask your quarterback to give you some lessons on how to properly quote someone so the original post can be consulted to find the context you always obscure.

Quote:
Not really but your attack is noted nonetheless.

again

Quote:
Once again Ironic coming from the poster who has a tread where he is looking for antagonist.

he could set a mirror by his keyboard and oppose himself,lol

She can look at that thread to see what is meant by an antagonist. She has a negative connotation of the word which is not necessary, but makes for good argument, right? lol

Quote:
Except it’s not. Careful study of the Bible has always lead me away from the pre-trib rapture.

me too!

And when have either of you ever responded to any of the arguments I have presented to support why I take the Pre-Trib position?

Never.

Quote:
So I can get more personal attacks on my intelligence and Bible Study. Gee how could I pass that up.

haha

It's all a big joke, right?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C

Quote:
First, that doesn't change the fact that she had not "already responded," which are your words to alleviate her guilt for her disruption and derailing of the thread.

DHK was being dishonest and it was him derailing the thread. By correcting him she was responding to his attempt to derail...shutting it down....then she offered other thoughts once she responded to his attempt.
Her first responses were to shut him down

No, Iconoclast, it has been shown many times over that her argument was false, based on a false premise.

You keep repeating this same error without once addressing that focal point.

She was not interested in the OP, she was only interested in arguing with DHK about her pet peeve, which is a sad attempt for her to justify her confusion on the matter.

Her first response was to further that same behavior that I have personally witnessed in many threads.

Quote:
You "enjoy her solid posting," lol, which is irrelevant to the discussion. So you enjoy her derailing the thread

.

her responses were right on and none of you refuted them....your denial of the facts does not negate her correct response.

They have been refuted, and an attempt to address the core issues such as the distinction between Israel and the Church have yet to be addressed.

She has turned a valid statement in regards to that issue into a charge that I have said no Jew was saved by corrupting what I said.

And you pat her on the back for it.

You are her worst enemy right now. That is just a fact.

Quote:
And you think false arguments based on false premise which are themselves irrelevant is "solid posting?"

If you understood the truth you would see it, she explained it to you.

Post #63:

This...

Originally Posted by revmwc View Post
No one knows the day nor the hour of the rapture. However, revelation clearly states that the beast, the false prophet and all the armies of the world are gathered together to fight against the one on the white horse which is the Lord Jesus. How do they know to gather there to fight Him?

Yeah that's just another reason that the post trib rapture doesn't work because the armies gathering together would definitely be a clue that the rapture is coming very soon.

...is relevant to what I said...how?

This is all you have to support a claim of solid posting? A reference to an event that is not even associated with the Rapture?

Quote:
Now this would be considered on topic, but we are examining your statement "she had already responded to the OP" which we have already seen is not true.

her response to DHK was her initial response when she shut down his falsehood,she followed up with 61, 63....

We are past that to your statements now.

You are not being honest by saying "she already responded" and that does not alleviate the fact that I was addressing the false argument itself.

Her first post was not on topic it was simply catering to her internal angst, lol.

If she can justify her own doubts it will help her justify rejecting the position.

But until she, and you, can get into the Bible long enough to discuss those issues, you will continue with this same disruptive influence you have on this forum.

Quote:
Did she enter into discussion because the topic interested her? Doesn't seem to have

...
she explained that having been taught at a dispy school she had to correct that error first.

And she is no closer to justifying her rejection of that view now than she was when she was in that school.

And you do not speak the truth in your statement. Since when is attending a school make one an authority, especially when...

...one rejects the teachings of that school.

I doubt seriously that school taught that there are "Two Peoples" of God in the eternal perspective.

And the fact remains that Israel was the People of God in the Old Testament, and that the Church is a new ministry. While the just may have been of spiritual Israel, they were not members of the church because the Church was not yet being built.

The Church is built upon the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and Israel, to the man...

...rejected Christ.

That includes the Disciples of Christ.

Quote:
Now, you will have to show me how she had "already responded to the OP" before derailing.

It is an instigated derailment meant to turn the conversation into an argument. In view it seems defending her friends takes precedence to the topic. So it is with you.

it was your boy who was the first in attacking OR....

Must be galling to have a "boy" expose your error, lol.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi guys, been a while since I've been here. What are the best biblical arguments against a post tribulation position?

The ones that always state that we are to be looking for the appearance of Lord jesus, never to be on the lookout for the Antichrist coming!

 

[OldRegular]

Hi guys, been a while since I've been here. What are the best biblical arguments against a post tribulation position?

Post tribulation you say? Post tribulation??????? Jesus Christ tells us:

John 16:33. These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

 

[DHK]

:laugh: oh yeah...watch this-
your double talk is catching you....the FLOOD was not judgment?

Perhaps you should laugh at your inability to understand scripture.
You need to go take a class in hermeneutics.

Here is just one of the verses in question:
26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

What you neglect is the context of that verse, which I advise you to go back and read. Jesus was explaining, not a judgment, but His Coming. His Coming, as the Flood, would be swift, sudden, quick, when people were not expecting it. That is what he is saying here. He is not speaking of the nature of the judgment. He is speaking of the nature of the time--the suddenness, swiftness and unexpectedness with which it will come.
So shall it be also in the days of the Son of man
--when you shall least expect it.
--as a thief in the night.
--two shall be in the field; one shall be taken and the other left (behind).

 

[Darrell C]

One more, and I think this is one of the "missing" posts. It seems they did not appear, or disappeared, but have returned. At least that is best as I can gather from what others have said.

These actually take on a relevance as the Preterist and A-millennial views are proffered as an argument against a premillennial view.

If we could just get a discussion as to the focal points it might once and for all be resolved and end the constant disruption we see in these types of threads.

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
So let's see what the actual teaching is. We can trace that back to men inspired of God to convey truth.

Instead of arguing over what men say.

So where is your Bible passages?

And I’m just trying to define terms so that people can be on the same page. But I already explained this up a few post.

Redefining terms is the correct word to employ.

The Scripture that was relevant was already offered and ignored in favor of a campaign against dispensationalists.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by blessedwife318

1. First, historic premillennialists believe in New Testament priority in which the New Testament interprets/reinterprets the OT.

You don't?

Actutally I do, which is why I’m not a Dispensationalist.

That is highly questionable. Apparently you do not believe that the New Testament interprets the Law, as we see in Hebrews where the People of God in view that are used as examples would be Israel, and the People of God in view in this Economy would be the Church.

That describes two dispensations throughout the book.

Quote:
You don't see the New Testament as not only holding new revelation, but clarifying the Old?

If you believe this then there is another issue you need to take up with the proponents of Dispensationlism.

So you don't believe the New Testament as not only holding new revelation, but clarifying the Old.

I know that, your antagonists know that, but you do not seem to understand the significance of rejecting this truth and how that applies to your rejection of all things dispensational.

It is just Biblical fact that God has ...


Hebrews 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


The Writer of Hebrews was a first century teacher, under inspiration, of the core issue of Dispensationalism.

Quote:
If you don't, my sympathies.

Well since I do believe that the New Testament interprets the Old Testament you can keep you sympathies for the proponents of Dispensationlism that don’t see this.

You don't believe that if you believe that Israel and the Church are all the People of God.

Read Hebrews 3.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by blessedwife318

2. Second, historic premillennialists believe the church is the new Israel

Do you?

No but I’m also not a historic pre-mill,

Is this truly your position? You do not believe that there are not two peoples of God spoken of, but that the faithful of all time, including the Age of Law...were spiritual Israel?

That is the erroneous argument used to deny that Israel was the People of God then, the Church is the People of God now, rather than two distinct groups.

That has nothing to do with the historical beliefs of anyone, it is simply basic Bible fact.

and I have no desire to argue someone else's position. I’m just defining terms.

Redefining. Defining them to suit your argument.

And I still have to ask, do you really not believe that the Church is the New Israel? The people of God?

Then you make a distinction yourself.

Quote:
Do Dispensationalists?

No they want to make a clear distinction between Israel and the Church despite Paul saying that there is no Jew, nor Greek in Christ.

Who teaches that?

Who brought that up in this thread?

And for the record, Paul makes it clear that this is now, which establishes the distinction between Jews and Gentiles then.

A different ministry of God which has broken down that middle wall of partition and made twain of both.

Can't say that in the Old Testament...Israel was Israel, Gentiles were Gentiles.

Quote:
And this is relevant because...?

Defining terms so that there can be honest debate.

Redefining and obscuring.

The people of God have always been those of faith, but, that does not mean they are to be seen as receiving what was only promise then, fulfilled now in Christ.


Continued...

 

[DHK]

Post tribulation you say? Post tribulation??????? Jesus Christ tells us:

John 16:33. These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Some other translations of that verse:

(Geneva) These thinges haue I spoken vnto you, that in me ye might haue peace: in the world ye shall haue affliction, but be of good comfort: I haue ouercome the world.

(ISV) I have told you this so that through me you may have peace. In the world you will have trouble, but be courageous—I have overcome the world!"

(LITV) I have spoken these things to you that you may have peace in Me. You have distress in the world; but be encouraged, I have overcome the world.

--The "tribulation" being spoken of is simply the affliction, the every day trouble, and distress that Christians encounter for the very reason that they are Christians; not for the reason that they stub their big toes as the world also does. If one chooses to live out their lives in a godly way witnessing to others, telling others of Christ, being zealous for the Lord they will suffer a certain amount of "persecution" or "trials" that Christ is speaking of here.
It has nothing to do with The Great Tribulation to come.

John, in his first epistle wrote:
1Jn 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
1Jn 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
--Through Christ, each and every Christian can overcome the world.
How?
The same way that they were saved--through faith.
"This is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith," the same faith by which we were born again--faith in Christ.

 

[Darrell C]

Quote:
Because you thought DHK said Spurgeon was a Dispensational premillennial?

That was the argument he was making to OR.

No...it was not.

And you even say he was making a comparison later. That is all he was doing, showing that the core understanding of the distinctives of dispensational theology can be seen to be affirmed by men who were Calvinists.

You are the one that redefined what he said and charged him with saying Spurgeon was a dispensational premillennial.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by blessedwife318

3. Third, unlike dispensationalists, historic premillennialists do not believe in a future restoration of national Israel.

Paul is a true Historical Premillenial believer, and he most certainly believed in the future restoration of Israel.

Just defining terms, feel free to find a historic pre-mill to argue with if you want.

I just gave you one: Paul was a historical pre-millennial believer.

Address that one.

Quote:
But again...relevance to this thread, or even DHKs post?

I established that in the beginning of my replies to you. Feel free to look it up.

I would think I would have run across them as I responded to your posts. I think there might be a few which popped up later but I will review the thread later.

I can already say thee will be no relevance found in regards to the issues I am myself responding to. What is relevant has been addressed in numerous posts.

Quote:
None whatsoever. Your teachers have taught you well, you replicate their own confusion.

Your attack is noted.

Sorry, but I see it as confusion when someone says they believe the New Testament interprets the Old then ignore that very issue.

You apply "neither Jew nor Greek" as though this was the case during the Age of Law.

It was not...Israel was a distinct nation, the People of God.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Quote:
First...nothing is curcial to dispensational thought. Just had to get that out of the way.

Secondly, the Pre-Trib Rapture is not crucial, but simply an element within dispensational theology. It is a distinctive, but takes a backseat to the concept of differing ministries in differing Ages. The building of the Church began at Pentecost on the framework of faith in the death of Christ.

Then you have another issue to take up with the proponents of Dispensationalism.

No, it is an issue I take up with people that falsely charge beliefs nobody here is a proponent of.

False arguments you offer because you will not address the actual Scripture.

Quote:
Find that in the Old Testament. Find one person in the Gospels that believed in Christ.

Dare ya.

Find Faith in the Old Testament: that’s easy
“4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.” Hab. 2:4

Doesn't actually do it.

This is what Christ said about their belief:


John 16:28-32

King James Version (KJV)

28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.

30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.


And let's look at the disciples "belief" in the Risen Lord here...


Luke 24:6-11

King James Version (KJV)

6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,

7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

8 And they remembered his words,

9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.


So again, I ask you, and anyone else that might like to answer...

...where do we see anyone believing on the name of Christ?

All Israel had was their carnal understanding of Messiah, and Peter best illustrates this in his opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ:


Matthew 16:21-23

King James Version (KJV)

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


Many such clear statements that deny belief in the Risen Savior, which is requires for anyone to be inducted in the Church...can be found.

We just have to stop long enough to consider all that is given us in Scripture.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Now tell us again how Jews are saved, since you said “Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ”

I never said "no Jew was 'saved,' " as those who were of faith according to the revealed will of God in those various times were saved by grace through faith.

But that does not mean they were eternally redeemed.


Hebrews 9:11-15

King James Version (KJV)

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Quote:
Tell that to these Presbyterians.

Of course, they sound a little vitriolic and biased in their presentation, which might interest you.

We disagree, plain and simple. But your attack on me is once again noted.

And of course that if refutes your statement is ignored, lol.

It seems some are very glad to dish it out, but can't take it when someone replicates their behavior. The difference being, though...my points are valid.

Quote:
And that means what, exactly? lol

And curious how one can call someone a Calvinist and show similarities in views and that means one is a dispensationalist. So is that it? Did you mean to say "One doesn't even have to use the word dispensation to be called one"?

I meant what I said. Lots of people use the word “Dispensation” but it doesn’t make them a Dispensationalist. In fact I just used the word but I doubt you would argue that it makes me a Dispensationalist. It’s pretty simple.

That was in fact DHKs point.

The core understanding of the distinctives can be seen in those who are not dispensational, yet, that does not stop you and your buddies from charging those core understandings which are similar as only being held by those who are Dispensationalists.

Quote:
And the relevance of this to a post trib argument?

To DHKs post?

DHK made the claim that Watts was a Dispensationlist. I showed that Watts was not. Again pretty simple.

Originally Posted by blessedwife318 View Post


Quote:
Quote:
Discussing dispensations or even articulating a detailed dispensational
scheme does not make one a dispensationalist, however, a point
that most dispensationalists recognize. For example, Walvoord observes
that Charles Hodge, a postmillennialist, described four biblical
dispensations,22 which leads him to the conclusion that “acknowledging
the presence of dispensations is not limited to a single theological
system.”23 Moreover, Ryrie himself admits that “Covenant Theologians
hold that there are various dispensations (and even use the word) within the outworking of the covenant of grace,”24

Where is watts mentioned?

Again...relevance?

Quote:
It doesn't change the fact that the same general views predate Darby. Labeling Darby as the father of Dispensationalism and denying those views prior, which is what was said in the post, boils down to absurdity.

Not absurdity, Honesty.

It's just not honest.

The core understanding not only predates Darby in the Church, but it is predated by the very teachings of Scripture itself.

There is no relevance.

Quote:
Show me Dispensational teaching that affirms this in regards to Atonement.

Show me any other issue where the type is not considered shadow.

I am not a Dispensationalist so it’s not my job to defend their views. 

No one asked you to defend them, but to defend your own statement.

You posted...

Originally Posted by blessedwife318 View Post


Quote:
Quote:
As a prophecy is the foretelling of things to come in words, so a type is
the foretelling of something to come in some real emblem or figure or resemblance
of it: Now as there are many ancient prophecies which were
not understood by the persons to whom they were first spoken, nor by
the persons who spoke with them; 1 Pet. 1:11, 12. Yet when they are fulfilled
they come to be better understood, and bear witness to the hand of
God both in the prophecy and in the accomplishment: So though types
may be obscure when they are first appointed, yet when they are accomplished
or fulfilled they are better understood, and shew the hand of God
both in appointing the sign, and bringing to pass the thing signified.30
Watts understands types to be merely shadows of spiritual reality to be
realized in the church, and thus he downplays the importance of the
type itself. John Feinberg explains what this implies:
Nondispensational systems stress that the type is shadow and the antitype
is reality; therefore, the meaning of the antitype supersedes and cancels
the meaning of the type in its own context. Dispensationalists do not
think types necessarily are shadows, and they demand that both type and
antitype be given their due meaning in their own context while maintain-ing a typological relation to one another.31

I would agree with the latter of half of what is said...

and they demand that both type and
antitype be given their due meaning in their own context while maintain-ing a typological relation to one another.

But not the first...

Dispensationalists do not
think types necessarily are shadows,

And I again ask the same questions that were ignored:

Show me Dispensational teaching that affirms this in regards to Atonement.

Show me any other issue where the type is not considered shadow.

If you can find someone that is equating the sacrifices offered under Law (by God's commandment for atonement, by the way)either on this forum or in popular Dispensational teachers, chances are for those on this forum I have already spoken with them or am currently, and as for teachers, well, I think most here know Scripture enough to reject such teaching.

But that is why you will continually argue this with people, because you do not take the discussion to Scripture and address the core teachings by which Dispensationalism became a theology system in it's own right.

That doesn't mean Scripture does not teach those basic core understandings of the different ministries of God in regards to Redemption, and it doesn't mean anyone here actually believes what you are railing against.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by webdog View Post
Hi guys, been a while since I've been here. What are the best biblical arguments against a post tribulation position?

Post tribulation you say? Post tribulation??????? Jesus Christ tells us:

John 16:33. These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Anyone who confuses a prominent event prophesied with Scripture with the daily tribulation we are told we are going through makes a serious mistake.

So I guess the tribulation of the first century is offered as just garden variety tribulation as well?

You know it is not.

Do you also deny that the Return of Christ is a distinct event? Is Revelation 19 to be considered just a picture of a warm and fuzzy feeling?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Post tribulation you say? Post tribulation??????? Jesus Christ tells us:

John 16:33. These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

How about addressing this point which was brought up:

Another argument that should be looked at is the insistence that "The First Resurrection" of Revelation 20 clarifies that a Pre-Trib Rapture couldn't have possibly occurred.

Couple of problems with that argument:

First (and no pun intended), the word "first" (protos) can mean either sequence, or rank. Sequence is doubtful because this is not the first resurrection (in sequence). At the very least we can say, if there is no pre-trib rapture, that the rapture of the Two Witnesses is the first. And since we know "first" cannot possibly refer to sequence, then that destroys their argument. Since the Rapture of the Two Witnesses takes place at the mid-point of the Tribulation, those who take a Mid-Trib view are actually better equipped to defend that view than the Post-Trib believer. Though the Post-Trib view offers more arguments, none of them are as convincing as the fact that the Two Witnesses are Raptured at the Mid-Point. While we do not see the Church raptured them, non-mention is how some build doctrine.

Secondly, that resurrection indicates only tribulation Martyrs are raised. Paul makes it clear all will be raised, both living and dead Saints, so we can see this could not be the Rapture taught by Paul.

How this is dealt with by some would be to spiritualize the Two Witnesses into the Testaments (Old and New). That is an unlikely interpretation because we cannot have Antichrist killing the Bible and the Bible lying in the street for three days, right? We do not see the Bible caught up to Heaven. But we do see the Two Witnesses said to be men who minister for 3 1/2 years, are killed, then Raptured (and the Rapture of the Church is first and foremost a Resurrection).

The Pre-Tribulation view is the only reasonable view which can be reconciled to all Prophecy.

God bless.

Explain how these events have either been fulfilled or will be as opposed to my suggestion.

And this goes out to any who might wish to address it, a most of the points that have been relevant have been obscured by the disruption.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

Anyone who confuses a prominent event prophesied with Scripture with the daily tribulation we are told we are going through makes a serious mistake.

So I guess the tribulation of the first century is offered as just garden variety tribulation as well?

You know it is not.

Do you also deny that the Return of Christ is a distinct event? Is Revelation 19 to be considered just a picture of a warm and fuzzy feeling?


God bless.[/QUOTE


Jesus stated that the Great tribulation would be a time like NTHER time in history of world, that all mankind could be killed off unless he returned, so that does n ot sound like anything that has happened yet!
]

 

[Darrell C]

Anyone who confuses a prominent event prophesied with Scripture with the daily tribulation we are told we are going through makes a serious mistake.

So I guess the tribulation of the first century is offered as just garden variety tribulation as well?

You know it is not.

Do you also deny that the Return of Christ is a distinct event? Is Revelation 19 to be considered just a picture of a warm and fuzzy feeling?


God bless.[/QUOTE




Jesus stated that the Great tribulation would be a time like NTHER time in history of world, that all mankind could be killed off unless he returned, so that does n ot sound like anything that has happened yet!
]

That is precisely the point of my statements.




God bless.