Pre-Trib Rapture and the Early Church Fathers.

[RLBosley]

The Covenant made by Jesus, New One, has granted to us all of the spiritual promises/provisions, but the physical promises are to the actual physical descendants of Abraham!

And the physical promises were fulfilled about 3,200 years ago.

 

[DHK]

You base that on Scripture of course... 2 Coronas 3:16???

How about when Jesus explained why he taught in parables... to REVEAL and conceal (not illustrate). Matt. 13 was some brand new doctrine. Not just illustrations.

Jesus never used parables to teach doctrine; He always used parables to illustrate the doctrine that He had already taught. That is how parables are used, and why they are used.
That is how a preacher is supposed to use an illustration. It illustrates the point he is making. It would be wrong for him to make an illustration and then teach from the illustration. He ought to be teaching the truth from the Word and God and then illustrate it.
Jesus put forth truths, and then used parables for his disciples' understanding.

 

[DHK]

Actually we are, because even the Noahic covenant finds it ultimate fulfillment in Christ. If there is an Adamic Covenant, then it too finds it fulfillment in Christ.

No problem with that. Remember, Christ was a Jew.

No one is denying that at all. Yes the covenant with Abraham applied physically to Israel, and of course the Mosaic Covenant was made with Israel, and of course the Davidic Covenant was made with an Israeli king. But that doesn't mean the covenants never expand beyond those that a physically jews. They were the type, the physical fulfillment.

Type and physical fulfillment of what?
People like Pink go way overboard in types and allegorical teaching. One can make a type out of almost anything. Read some Charismatic teaching to get some good examples.

Example.
The walls of Jericho came tumbling down.
The walls of my girl friend's heart came tumbling down.
Therefore I knew it was the will of God to marry her (in spite of the fact she may have been unsaved).
--He might have been reading the book of Joshua at that time and that story "spoke" to him. Good example, of allegory and spiritualization though, especially in the application department.

The New Testament is loud and clear that Christ is the complete fulfillment of all he covenants and those who are identified with him receive the promises. Read the next couple verses and you see that "not all Israel is Israel" and that the "children of promise" are the true seed.

He is not the complete fulfillment of ALL the covenants.
He is not a fulfillment of the Noahic Covenant. When the Lord takes away the rainbow and destroys the earth with fire, and makes a new earth and a new heaven, then it will be fulfilled.

Every time anyone tries to point to you the passages that explain the expansion of the scope of the covenants, you run to this verse as if it alone disproves the others. It does not.

The covenants were given to Israel. We live in a dispensation of grace. All relevant and unfulfilled promises or covenants relate primarily to Israel. Christ is coming for Israel in the Tribulation. Israel will be saved as a nation. The Lord will set up his kingdom and fulfill his covenant with Israel.
God gave to Israel the covenants.
I am not the one who must keep the Sabbath, be circumcised, etc. But Israel must, as long as Israel is Israel.

You're dreaming if you think those are the only references to the covenants.

Look it up in your concordance. I specifically said: "These are the only references in the NT where the word "covenants" is used. They are. Note the word "covenants" is plural. The word in the singular may be found. But the word in the plural is found only in those three references. Prove me wrong if you wish.

This has nothing to do with the millennial Kingdom. I don't know how on earth you get that.

I am not going to explain that now. It is irrelevant. I took a lot of time and effort showing that wasn't the primary meaning. The primary meaning was our relationship with Christ, so there is no need to dwell on this point.

Paul is contrasting the Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant. The Christians are heirs according to the promise and receive the better Covenant that frees us from bondage. But this says nothing about who inherits the covenant promises given to Abraham.

NO. He is contrasting the law, which is given at Sinai; to freedom of the Law, which we have in Christ. It is an allegory, and he plainly states that it is.

If you go one chapter earlier you will clearly see that it is those who have the faith of Abraham, that is Christians, who receive the promises.

Abraham was justified by faith. We are made righteous by faith, as Abraham was.

EXACTLY! We are one! We are one household! You are wrong however to say that this is only dealing with the believers in Ephesus. That's lunacy. How could something like this apply only there and not to every other local church and the universal church? We Gentiles were cut off from the covenants, but now we are brought in to the household of God. How do you not see then that in this one new body, the church, not only is there no division (Which you deny with your two people of God system) but that all in this one new body receives the promises?

First, I do not believe in the esoteric, invisible, universal, undefinable, unassembled assembly called the "universal church."
It is a contradiction of terms. Ekklesia means assembly.
This is an assembly that cannot assemble. It has no reason to assemble; no purpose to assemble, no pastor, no deacons, no statement of faith, no unity, nothing! It is meaningless.
It is not taught in the Scriptures. So you can't sell me on such a meaningless term. Ekklesia means assembly all the time.

The Gentile believers and the Jewish believers were no one Christ, and Paul takes great efforts to explain that. There is nothing that separates them. It doesn't matter where you go, whether you go on a mission field, or to any church across this nation, believers are one in Christ--rich or poor, black or white, there is nothing to separate them. We are one in Christ.
Before that time we were separated from Christ. Yes, that is the application. But that is not the intended historical interpretation. Paul's use of the covenant does not apply to me. The two groups were separated by many things and Paul lists them all. All those things were now done away with.
What Paul lists are the things that separated the Gentiles from the Jews.

Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
--All of those are abolished. Now all are reconciled to God. There is no longer any division.

 

[Inspector Javert]

First, I do not believe in the esoteric, invisible, universal, undefinable, unassembled assembly called the "universal church."
It is a contradiction of terms. Ekklesia means assembly.
This is an assembly that cannot assemble. It has no reason to assemble; no purpose to assemble, no pastor, no deacons, no statement of faith, no unity, nothing! It is meaningless.
It is not taught in the Scriptures. So you can't sell me on such a meaningless term. Ekklesia means assembly all the time.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:
That point.....and that point alone, if properly understood, would RADICALLY change the thought processes of Covenant Theology adherents and non-Dispensationalists.

Until the Ecclesiology is correct, they will not understand the uniqueness of the Church. Non-Dispies cannot and will not grasp that the "Church" is distinct from the Nation of Israel as long as the mistaken notion of a "Universal Church" is adhered to.

You are doing an EXCELLENT job DHK.......Dr. Bob is also EXTREMELY well-versed and knowledgeable about these doctrines (and Biblicist as well). As long as the "Church" includes any and all of those who are merely "saved" or "elect" or "justified" etc....Dispensationalism will not make sense to your friends here. If Baptists would divorce themselves from Universal Church Ecclesiology (as was the habit in the past)....and understand who they are and what a New Testament "Church" is (and what it isn't). Than what you are laboriously expounding to them...(quite ably) would finally click.

It will not likely "click" though, as long as any and all saved persons are thought in the minds of your detractors as members of the "Church". I think that is where the communication breaks down.

I think the idea of a Universal Church is the greatest obstacle to overcome if non-Dispensationalists are to come to understand what you are trying to tell them.

Simply put:
Your definition of "Church" is not their definition of "Church"...
By extension....your definition of "Israel" is actually not the same as their definition of "Israel" either. That may seem hard to believe at first, but I believe it's the crux of the issue.

 

[Dr. Bob]

The title of the thread gave the "subject". The link in the first post gave the direct quotations of ante-Nicene fathers speaking of a rapture THEN tribulation.

This is a valid topic for discussion.

And from the looks of the discussion (everyone jumping on their hobby horses and favorite topics) few have digested

Irenaeus And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.”

Cyprian "Do you not give God thanks, do you not congratulate yourself, that by an early departure you are taken away, and delivered from the shipwrecks and disasters that are imminent? Let us greet the day which assigns each of us to his own home, which snatches us hence, and sets us free from the snares of the world and restores us to paradise and the kingdom.”

Ephraim "For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."

 

[Reformed]

Citing patristic age sources to support Dispensationalism is wishful thinking. As others have commented, Historic Premillennialism (Chialism) was popular with the Patristic Fathers, but in cannot be confused with Dispensationalism. The fact is that Dispensationalism did not come on the scene until Darby, and it did not hit critical mass until C.I. Scofield.

As for the reliability of the Patristic Fathers, one needs to tread carefully. They were all over the place doctrinally. I especially like reading them to see how they dealt with various heresies like Arianism, Donatism, and Montanism et. al. Even my favorite Patristic Father, Athanasius, bought into baptismal regeneration.

 

[DHK]

Citing patristic age sources to support Dispensationalism is wishful thinking. As others have commented, Historic Premillennialism (Chialism) was popular with the Patristic Fathers, but in cannot be confused with Dispensationalism. The fact is that Dispensationalism did not come on the scene until Darby, and it did not hit critical mass until C.I. Scofield.

There were many before Darby.
Isaac Watts was one of many.
Check his work here:
http://scottaniol.com/wp-content/uploads/Aniol2.pdf

 

[OldRegular]

The New Covenant superceded/rendered obsolate the Old One God had established with Israel, so there is no continuation going on, but that there is a new creation called the church where jews/Gentiles now made one in Christ...

Sure there is continuation. Read the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31 ff which is repeated verbatim in Hebrews 8:8. Then try understanding what Hebrews is telling us about the New Covenant.

That does NOT negate though the promises God made to one day restore nation Israel back to land, and to become nation of God under Messiah again!

And for ever is reduced to 1000 years!:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[OldRegular]

Actually we are, because even the Noahic covenant finds it ultimate fulfillment in Christ. If there is an Adamic Covenant, then it too finds it fulfillment in Christ.

Genesis 3:15 tells us: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

If Jesus Christ does not fulfill that promise then we are all still in our sins! But thank God HE did!

 

[OldRegular]

DHK is right on this , as parables should NOT be used to build a theological point on, use the Epistles for that!

That is laughable, putting it politely. So we can just through Matthew 13 away because i know dispensationalists would never use the parable of the wheat and the tares to explain their doctrine!:laugh::laugh:

 

[OldRegular]

DHK is right on this , as parables should NOT be used to build a theological point on, use the Epistles for that!

Can we throw the four Gospels away also. Apparently the hypers only use the prison epistles of Paul so they really don't have much do they.

 

[OldRegular]

The Covenant made by Jesus, New One, has granted to us all of the spiritual promises/provisions, but the physical promises are to the actual physical descendants of Abraham!

Does that include Ishmael? And then there are all these folks:

Genesis 25:1-4
1. Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
2. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
3. And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.
4. And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.

And that doesn't include the children of Abraham's concubines!

 

[beameup]

I would love to see where that is made "pretty clear."

It's "pretty clear" that the Roman Emperor Constantine wanted a peaceful, tranquil Empire and he didn't want any talk of
Antichrists, a greater future Kingdom ruled by God on Earth, or any mention of lawlessness and the need for a removal of Christians from the earth.
These plain truths were suppressed by the Holy Roman "Catholic" Church. It just so happens that these "forgotten truths" are reemerging in these last days.
It is unfortunate that so many Protestants, and even "Baptists", have bought-into the 1 1/2 millennia old "Catholic" heresies.

Refer to 1 & 2 Thessalonians.

 

[DHK]

That is laughable, putting it politely. So we can just through Matthew 13 away because i know dispensationalists would never use the parable of the wheat and the tares to explain their doctrine!:laugh::laugh:

Do you ever have opportunity to preach or teach OR?
Do you give the illustration first and then take the doctrine from the illustration?
Or do you teach the truth of the Word of God and illustrate the truth with an illustration?
Which method do you use?

EX.
I HAD A DREAM!!!!!
Let me tell you the doctrine it teaches.
I didn't know you were Ellen G. White in disguise. :laugh:

 

[Yeshua1]

Can we throw the four Gospels away also. Apparently the hypers only use the prison epistles of Paul so they really don't have much do they.

NO, as ALL the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, bu the truth is also that there is progressive revelation going on, and that for us under the new covenant, your main meat to feed upon will be the epistles of all the NT...

 

[OldRegular]

NO, as ALL the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, bu the truth is also that there is progressive revelation going on, and that for us under the new covenant, your main meat to feed upon will be the epistles of all the NT...

God disagrees with you.

2 Timothy 3:16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[DHK]

God disagrees with you.

2 Timothy 3:16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Absolutely, OR. It is. That is how the little old lady found God's will for her life as she opened her Bible to one passage after another.

First she found the verse: Judas went out and hanged himself.

Then she turned to: Go, and do thou likewise.

Then she found: What thou doest, do quickly.

Indeed all Scripture is profitable. Did she find the will of God for her life? Was it profitable for her? Are you properly or "rightly dividing the word of truth"?
The answer is no.
I have already demonstrated to you that your method of interpretation is very much akin to that of Ellen G. White's. You may not like the comparison. But that kind of hermeneutic is wrong. Doctrine does not come from parables, rather parables illustrate doctrine already taught.

 

[JonC]

bu the truth is also that there is progressive revelation going on.

I know that there are groups that believe in progressive revelation (although I was not aware that there were Baptist groups). Where does the concept of "progressive revelation" come from (in Scripture)? If there is progressive revelation, then would it not also stand to reason that the office of apostle is still needed?

 

[DHK]

I know that there are groups that believe in progressive revelation (although I was not aware that there were Baptist groups). Where does the concept of "progressive revelation" come from (in Scripture)? If there is progressive revelation, then would it not also stand to reason that the office of apostle is still needed?

How do you define progressive revelation?
Did David have more of God's revelation than Enos?
Did John the Baptist have more of God's revelation than David?
Did Peter have more of God's revelation than John the Baptist?
Did the Apostle Paul possibly have more of God's revelation than Peter?

Is it not possible, that because we have all books of the Bible easily available to us in printed form, have more revelation than any of the apostles did?
Revelation is progressive.
We also build on the doctrine of godly men who have gone on before us, such as those who were able to formulate the doctrine of the trinity in words easy for us to understand.