Pre-Trib Premillennial Rapture

[Primitive Baptist]

Amillennialist here...why don't you all stop arguing. You're all wrong!

 

[Bro. John Willis]

Originally posted by Kiffin:
I use to be dogmatic Pre Trib but the Pre Trib is a theory that often reads behind the lines. The fact is there is no scripture that teaches of

1. 7 year Tribulation
2. A Rebuilt Jerusalem Temple

The Pre Trib view was unheard of until the 1800's which cast doubt on it's credibilty. Of course all Tribulation and Millenial views are Theories. Tim Lahaye and many others have turned the Book of Revelation into a "Christian" Horror Novel that must rival Stephen King. That is a shame.

I personaly hold to a Amill view with a Postmill edge

but would basically call my self a Panmill (It will all pan out in the end). It should be noted that even Amills and Postmills in the past at times have turned Revelation into a "Christian" Horror" book in the same way Lahaye has done. I think however Posttrib is what the Bible teaches though I am not dogmatic on my Millenial views. Let's remember that the Jews had a completely wrong understanding of the 1st Coming of Christ and it would not suprise me if we are all off on the Second coming. As a seminary professer told me in class once, there are 3 things we know for sure about the Second Coming of Christ.

1. Christ is Coming again
2. We Don't know when
3. Be Ready

Too often today people are focusing on the coming of AntiChrist, computer chips as a Mark of the Beast, etc... that we miss the basic message.

1655 Midland Baptist Confession

I must agree with you firmly brother. But *Panmill*...that's a new twist. Kind of catchy. OK if I use it? LOL.
Those who are just die-hard premill-pretrib,have a problem explaining their methodology of exergesis when it comes to their 'problem texts'. Actually, they fail to see that their theory supports three and maybe four comings of Christ. Even from reading these posts it is easy to see that they start from the position that their premise is true and then discover so-called proof-texts to supply their empty volleys. This is NOT valid inquiry but, propaganda! It is the type of double-speak that makes unbelievers and weak believers walk away from any thing Christian. It's just too plain difficult to work out the gymnastics and rubber band formulae of the Pretrib scheme to make it believable to those who truly believe in the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus. It's like accepting Evolution as valid. It takes more faith to believe in it than it does Creation. Why? Because Creation is simple Bible and scientific fact and Evolution isn't. Likewise with this theory. It just ain't in the Book! Now let's see the Pavlov's subjects prove it. Or rather should I say...Big Brother (or Sister).
A later post tries to prove the validity of the premill theory by attempting to apply to the position of Athanasius and Polycarp and say that, by extension, this must have been the position of John. Not so. See what the writer is attempting to do. Just as I wrote above, he is starting off that his premise is true and is taking improper liberties with history itself to prove his point. Let's start with the history first. The truth is that Athanasius could lie, Polycarp could lie, even John when not inspired to write the Word of God could lie, but the Scriptures cannot. Again let them try to prove it by Scripture plainly and simply. They can't do it.
It's time for all good true Baptists to leave this Jehovah's Witnesses eschatology and theology behind and to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints. I never read of one instance where Christ, an apostle nor any New Testament writer even mentioned something so important as a 7 year Tribulation, premillenial rapture of the saints etc. etc, etc. And you know what..NEITHER HAS ANYONE ELSE!!
Till next time
Your brother
John
(Again good post)

 

[Bro. John Willis]

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by hrhema:
Peter said in the Last days scoffers would arise who would say that we have heard about his coming for ages and where is it.

I don't think that non-pretrib premills are saying that Christ isn't coming again. Where do you get that idea from?

The reason two of you are attacking LaHaye is because he is not Baptist. He did not write the book to protect the Left Behind Series.

I didn't know he wasn't a Baptist. What is he?

As far as people flocking to another theory is not what the latest polls in many magazines have shown.

I would rather stand with Scriptural truth than any majority on any subject.

As far as some guy coming to the church when the Apostle John was there I have news for you. Athansius is the Father of the Doctrine of the Trinity. He is the one who brought this doctrine to the forefront at the Council of Nicea and Trent where the majority of Christianity bases their beliefs.

As someone with an interest in history, is that available on the Internet somewhere?

Thanks.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken</font>[/QUOTE]Bro. Ken:
These references to Athanasius and the Council of Nicea are all Roman Catholic heresy. Whoever trusts them, must be influenced by Catholicism. However, you can find some of them at any Roman Catholic web-site with a doctrinal/dogma/beliefs search engine. Happy hunting, you'll need it trying to flush out this fox.
Your brother
John
(I think that you are absolutely right!)

 

[Bro. John Willis]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
Amillennialist here...why don't you all stop arguing. You're all wrong!

Hallelujah!! Amen brother

Your brother
John

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
Amillennialist here...why don't you all stop arguing. You're all wrong!

I am also an amillennialist of the philosophy of history method of interpretation of the book of Revelation. My favorite commentary on Revelation is More Than Conquerors by William Hendriksen.

Haven't considered premillenialism(both historic and dispensational) and found them weighed in the balance and found wanting, I am turning my attention to postmillennialism now to see if there is any Scriptural proof to challenge my amillennial position.

One redeemed by Christ's blood,

Ken

 

[Kiffin]

The early Church Fathers were Historic Premill but not Dispensational Premill. As far as Athanasius goes, I believe he was Amill as almost all the later Fathers were. I would like some Pretrib quotes by the Fathers.

Most Baptists in the 1600-1800's were either Amill or Postmill. C.H. Spurgeon and John Gill were a few of the rare Historic Premill in that time but they were also posttrib.

 

[Eric B]

Athansius is the Father of the Doctrine of the Trinity. He is the one who brought this doctrine to the forefront at the Council of Nicea and Trent where the majority of Christianity bases their beliefs. He was a student of Polycarp who was a student of the Apostle John.

Athanasius and Polycarp were nearly 2 centuries apart. (Polycarp's disciple was named Polycrates. Believe it or not, Athanasius was heavily influenced by Origen, if not a student of his)

 

[Daniel David]

What is this, an Amillenial support group or an AA meeting (Amillenials Anonomous)? Hi my name is John Willis and I have been an amill for as long as I can remember...

Really guys, to dismiss pretrib because you don't see it or understand it or any of the above reasons is pitiful. I have never seen a valid argument against pretrib - premill. Perhaps in your infinite wisdom you could offer one? Huh, anyone...?

I couldn't help but notice the lack of Scripture to prove either amill or postmill or attack the premill position. Perhaps we will see some of that???

Bro. Willis, there are no "problem passages" for the premiller. The only problems are in the mind of those who disagree and want it to be a problem for us. Why not bring to light a "problem passage".

Also, you dismissed premill off as a Jehovah's Witness eschatology???? How bizarre is that? So much for integrity, scholarship, and credibility. JW were formed about a century ago. Premill has been around as far as we can go historically. As I said, even Berkhof admitted to that fact.

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by PreachtheWord:
[QB]Really guys, to dismiss pretrib because you don't see it or understand it or any of the above reasons is pitiful. I have never seen a valid argument against pretrib - premill.

You've got it a little backwards

There is not a single - not one - Scripture verse which teaches a pretrib rapture. Nada. Zilch. As one who believes an inferential doctrine as opposed to the one-time Second Coming of Christ on the last day (Matt 10:15; John 6:40, 44, 54; 11:24) it is your position which must prove its case.

As for premill, the entire doctrine is based upon Rev 20, and a millennium is mentioned nowhere else - no where - in Scripture.

Instead Scripture teaches that Christ returns, and the end then comes.

BTW, I too an an Amillennilist

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by PreachtheWord:

Really guys, to dismiss pretrib because you don't see it or understand it or any of the above reasons is pitiful. I have never seen a valid argument against pretrib - premill. Perhaps in your infinite wisdom you could offer one? Huh, anyone...?

I couldn't help but notice the lack of Scripture to prove either amill or postmill or attack the premill position. Perhaps we will see some of that???

Hmmm...if you would listen to the two sermons that I listed at the beginning of this thread, I think you would hear plenty of Scriptural proof that the pretrib premill position cannot stand in the light of Scripture.

So far all I have pretty much seen the pretrib premill folks in this thread do is say, "I won't listen to these sermons, my mind is made up."

I would really like to have someone from that view listen to these sermons and interact with the textual exegesis that is offered and if inclined to do so, offer a competing textual exegesis.

Now, is that too much to ask?

One awaiting the appearing and revelation of Christ,

Ken

 

[LadyEagle]

(sigh) Again, I post:

Here is the one section of the Larkin chart if you care to look:

http://members.citynet.net/morton/images/lcoming.gif

The tribulation could start at any moment, at the very second the elect are snatched away. Perhaps at the moment the first nuke is launched (certainly the description of nuclear destruction is described in Rev).

But the Bride will be spared the Wrath of God to come during the Woe of Woes. That is not to say there won't be suffering and martyrdom leading up to the Great Tribulation as it going on now, before it is fully here! There may be a time of suffering leading up to it even for us in America.

But it is not Judgment for the Bride. By His stripes we are healed. Judgment for the Bride was paid at Calvary. That is all I want to say for now as this reply is long enough.

Plenty of Scriptures on Larkin Chart above.

(I truly believe pre-trib with all my heart! I truly do! Thank You, Jesus!)

It is Blessed Hope!

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by EagleLives911:
(sigh) Again, I post:

No need to sigh. I think most of us already understand the basic layout of pretrib. I've studied Larking inside and out, and even taught a class on him. In my opinion, he reads too much into scriptures and jumps to faulty conclusions.

It is Blessed Hope!

It is? Mine is the *fact* of the appearing of Christ, not the *timing* of the appearing of Christ. Are you saying that if pretrib is actually wrong, you have no "Blessed Hope"?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Chris Temple:
There is not a single - not one - Scripture verse which teaches a pretrib rapture. Nada. Zilch. As one who believes an inferential doctrine as opposed to the one-time Second Coming of Christ on the last day (Matt 10:15; John 6:40, 44, 54; 11:24) it is your position which must prove its case.

There are several passages that assume a pretrib rapture. In fact, without a pretrib rapture, these passages make no sense. To say that there is no single -- not one -- Scripture verse that teaches this is a great overstatement.

Additionally, our position has been shown to be exegetically sound numerous times. So both of your contentions are answered.

As for premill, the entire doctrine is based upon Rev 20, and a millennium is mentioned nowhere else - no where - in Scripture.

This too is an unfortunate overstatement. What you should say is that the time period of the millennium is taught only in Rev 20. The fact of an earthly reign of the Messiah King over his people is testified to more times than can be listed in this forum. We are premillennialists, not becasue of Rev 20, but because of the promises of God who cannot lie. We are premillennialists because we value the OT as inspired prophecy.

But as before, you and I will agree to disagree. I just wanted to voice an opinion on your comments so people would know that there is a side you are not showing.

 

[Ransom]

hrhema said:

Even Athanasius believed in the pre-trib rapture in 300 A.D.

Like others in this thread, I would like to see this assertion documented: enough quoted text to prove the point and establish context, and a detailed enough reference that I can find it myself, please.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by EagleLives911:
(sigh) Again, I post:

Here is the one section of the Larkin chart if you care to look:

If there is one thing that pretrib premills are known for it is their myriad of charts.

When they trade stocks they probably use technical analysis instead of fundamental analysis.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

Additionally, our position has been shown to be exegetically sound numerous times.

Is there a place on the Internet where I can see this exegetical defense?

Thanks.

One awaiting for the appearing and revelation of Christ,

Ken

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

In fact, without a pretrib rapture, these passages make no sense.

Can you list a few? I don't believe in pretrib, and I don't know of any passages that don't make sense to me.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />As for premill, the entire doctrine is based upon Rev 20, and a millennium is mentioned nowhere else - no where - in Scripture.

This too is an unfortunate overstatement. What you should say is that the time period of the millennium is taught only in Rev 20. The fact of an earthly reign of the Messiah King over his people is testified to more times than can be listed in this forum.

</font>[/QUOTE]No, Chris is entirely right. No other place in scripture mentions a thousand-year period. "Earthly reign" of Christ does not equal premill. It is not uncommon to be amill or postmill, and still believe in an earthly reign of Christ after he returns. It is simply the "everlasting kingdom", not the "millennial kingdom".

For others: still waiting for those quotes....

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by BrianT:

For others: still waiting for those quotes....

You know I am starting to wonder if there is such a thing as an exegetical defense of pretrib premillennialism. It appears it is a matter of some men a 75-175 years ago coming up with charts and theories, some big names in Christendom publishing books in the 1960's and 1970's, the readers of these books working each other up into a doctrinal lather, and then creating a mass following among people who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag in defending their position.

To which I must say, pitiful, just pitiful.

But maybe, just maybe, they will surprise me and someone will actually interact with the two sermons I provided a link to at the beginning of this thread.

As the little boy said in the movie Angels in the Outfield said "It could happen."

One awaiting for the appearing and revelation of Christ,

Ken

[ June 06, 2002, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

[LadyEagle]

It was earlier in this thread stated thus: The fact is there is no scripture that teaches of... A Rebuilt Jerusalem Temple.

Well, according to the Jews, they believe there IS to be a rebuilt temple according to Scripture! (Of course, they base their beliefs on the OT prophecies.)

From the web site of Temple Institute:

When it comes to any discussion about when and how the next Holy Temple—the long-anticipated Third Temple—will be rebuilt, there are many important questions that need to be raised. For example: How will the Third Temple be built? Where must it be built, and why? Can it be built somewhere else, temporarily? How could it possibly come about in the face of present-day political realities? Who will actually build it? Don’t some people believe that it will descend from heaven, ready made? Will it be different from its predecessors, and in what way? Is this Third Temple that we are speaking about, the one in Ezekial’s vision? Will this temple be built by the messiah, or should it be completed before he arrives? These are just some of the questions that need to be clarified.

The link:

http://www.templeinstitute.org/faqs/index.html

From their Mission Statement (they are in Jerusalem and have an interesting web site):

The Temple Institute (in Hebrew, Machon HaMikdash), founded in 1987, is a non-profit educational and religious organization located in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City. We are dedicated to every aspect of the Biblical commandment to build the Holy Temple of G-d on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem. Our short-term goal is to rekindle the flame of the Holy Temple in the hearts of mankind. Our long-term goal is to do as much as possible to bring about the building of the Holy Temple in our time. Thus, the Institute’s efforts include raising public awareness about the Holy Temple, and the central role that it occupies in the spiritual life of mankind. The many areas of activities conducted by the Institute combine research, publications, and conferences, as well as the production of educational materials.

"...in our time." Gee, not only does Scripture support pre-trib doctrine, but the Jews are fulfilling end-time prophecy before our eyes! Maybe there's something to this! (ya know, like this generation shall not pass away until these thing are fulfilled, etc.)

BTW: In response to caustic comment above: The blessed Hope is His appearing whenever it is, has nothing to do with timing, even tho I know with all my heart, He's coming Soon! (And if He calls me home before then, that's okay too.) I'm ready either way!

 

[Kiffin]

Eagle 911 stated,

It was earlier in this thread stated thus: The fact is there is no scripture that teaches of... A Rebuilt Jerusalem Temple.

Well, according to the Jews, they believe there IS to be a rebuilt temple according to Scripture! (Of course, they base their beliefs on the OT prophecies.)

Well, Bro I usually agree with your political views but on this I have to part company.

There is no mention of a rebuilt Tribulation Temple in scripture. Modern day Jews rely more on the Talmud, Mishnash... rather than Moses and the Prophets.

Rebuilding a Temple in the Tribulation would be one of the most blasphemous acts any could do since it would be a mockery of the cross and would not require the Anti Christ to go into it and proclaim himself god for it to be an abomination (as Pretribbers often assert will happen). Just the building of it would be an Abomination to Christ.