PreTrib Rapture Affeccianados -- Good Sermon

[skypair]

Sermon presented on how close the rapture is. Go to 7/25/08 sermon, put on "Medium," and skip the first 15 minutes.

The sermon aligns the coming of Christ and the rapture with "blood moon" signs in Revelation.

http://www.harvestreno.org/messages.asp

skypair

 

[Grasshopper]

Sermon presented on how close the rapture is. Go to 7/25/08 sermon, put on "Medium," and skip the first 15 minutes.

The sermon aligns the coming of Christ and the rapture with "blood moon" signs in Revelation.

http://www.harvestreno.org/messages.asp

skypair

How close is it skypair? Can you give us a time frame?

 

[Ed Edwards]

The pretribulation rapture2 will be after 30 August 2008.

Needless to say, I could not have told you last July (2008) that the above statement would correct today (31 Aug 2008). The above statement kills the a-mill (no literal Millennial Messianic Kingdom in the future) position


a-mill position: :tonofbricks:


The following trailer is also about date setting of the pretribulation rapture2

-

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Forgive me for coming accross over-critical...but this made not click a single sermon:

Get out your bible, a pen, maybe a cup of coffee. Follow along and may God reveal His heart for you, His plan for you, and His amazing grace to your specific need!

Ok, let's all sing together..."It's all about meeeeeeeeeeeee....and not about youuuuuuuuuuu...."

 

[TCGreek]

Another prediction? When will we ever learn.

 

[skypair]

The pretribulation rapture2 will be after 30 August 2008.

Needless to say, I could not have told you last July (2008) that the above statement would correct today (31 Aug 2008). The above statement kills the a-mill (no literal Millennial Messianic Kingdom in the future) position


a-mill position: :tonofbricks:


The following trailer is also about date setting of the pretribulation rapture2

-

You're the BOMB, Ed!! Love ya!
:thumbs:
skypair

 

[skypair]

Forgive me for coming accross over-critical...but this made not click a single sermon:

Ok, let's all sing together..."It's all about meeeeeeeeeeeee....and not about youuuuuuuuuuu...."

Ah! Another Rick Warren devotee! Shouldn't you have capitalized the "Y" in "youuuuuuu?"

What do you think Rick Warren believes? :type:

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Ah! Another Rick Warren devotee! Shouldn't you have capitalized the "Y" in "youuuuuuu?"

What do you think Rick Warren believes? :type:

skypair

I am not sure who you are saying is a Rick Warren devotee. lol It's def. not me. And I have not paid attention to what Rick Warren believes for quite some time.

 

[skypair]

Sorry, all,

The sermon was MAY 24, 2008 entitled Matthew 25. About 1/4 of it is "buildup" from Mt 24 so I suggested you skip into the sermon about that far.

skypair

 

[Grasshopper]

If its sermons on Matthew 24-25 you're interested in the here you go:

http://www.preterism-eschatology.com/David Curtis--Discourse.htm

Thes will give you the exact timing of the Tribulation.:thumbs:

 

[Amy.G]

If its sermons on Matthew 24-25 you're interested in the here you go:

http://www.preterism-eschatology.com/David Curtis--Discourse.htm

Thes will give you the exact timing of the Tribulation.:thumbs:

From your article:

Matthew 24 was a prophecy that has already been fulfilled, and therefore, has no future fulfillment at all today. It all happened in the generation that heard Jesus speak these words. Jesus said of the days of Jerusalem's fall in 70 AD:

When did Jesus return in the clouds in glory? This has already happened?

Mat 24:30 "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mat 24:31 "And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

[Grasshopper]

From your article:




When did Jesus return in the clouds in glory? This has already happened?

Mat 24:30 "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mat 24:31 "And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

John Gill
and it may be observed, that the other evangelists make no mention of the sign, only speak of the son of man, Mar_13:26 and he shall appear, not in person, but in the power of his wrath and vengeance, on the Jewish nation which will be a full sign and proof of his being come: for the sense is, that when the above calamities shall be upon the civil state of that people, and there will be such changes in their ecclesiastical state it will be as clear a point, that Christ is come in the flesh, and that he is also come in his vengeance on that nation, for their rejection and crucifixion him, as if they had seen him appear in person in the heavens. They had been always seeking a sign, and were continually asking one of him; and now they will have a sign with a witness; as they had accordingly,

Adam Clarke
Then shall appear the sign of the Son of man - The plain meaning of this is, that the destruction of Jerusalem will be such a remarkable instance of Divine vengeance, such a signal manifestation of Christ’s power and glory, that all the Jewish tribes shall mourn, and many will, in consequence of this manifestation of God, be led to acknowledge Christ and his religion. By της γης, of the land, in the text, is evidently meant here, as in several other places, the land of Judea and its tribes, either its then inhabitants, or the Jewish people wherever found.

Albert Barnes
The sign of the Son of man - The "evidence" that he is coming to destroy the city of Jerusalem.

Caiaphus was told he would see this event:

Mat 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Again John Gill commenting on verse 64:

and coming in, the clouds of heaven. So Christ's coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, as it is often called the coming of the son of man, is described in this manner, Mat_24:27.

The context of the Discourse:

Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

John Gill
and it may be observed, that the other evangelists make no mention of the sign, only speak of the son of man, Mar_13:26 and he shall appear, not in person, but in the power of his wrath and vengeance, on the Jewish nation which will be a full sign and proof of his being come: for the sense is, that when the above calamities shall be upon the civil state of that people, and there will be such changes in their ecclesiastical state it will be as clear a point, that Christ is come in the flesh, and that he is also come in his vengeance on that nation, for their rejection and crucifixion him, as if they had seen him appear in person in the heavens. They had been always seeking a sign, and were continually asking one of him; and now they will have a sign with a witness; as they had accordingly,

Adam Clarke
Then shall appear the sign of the Son of man - The plain meaning of this is, that the destruction of Jerusalem will be such a remarkable instance of Divine vengeance, such a signal manifestation of Christ’s power and glory, that all the Jewish tribes shall mourn, and many will, in consequence of this manifestation of God, be led to acknowledge Christ and his religion. By της γης, of the land, in the text, is evidently meant here, as in several other places, the land of Judea and its tribes, either its then inhabitants, or the Jewish people wherever found.

Albert Barnes
The sign of the Son of man - The "evidence" that he is coming to destroy the city of Jerusalem.

Caiaphus was told he would see this event:

Mat 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Again John Gill commenting on verse 64:

and coming in, the clouds of heaven. So Christ's coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, as it is often called the coming of the son of man, is described in this manner, Mat_24:27.

The context of the Discourse:

Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Yet, being just toward the men quoated concerning the above passages, they ought not to be used to give any sort of weight at all to full preterism. I cannot speak completely regarding Albert Barnes or Adam Clarke, but I know concerning John Gill that he did not hold the view of what is called preterism or full-preterism today.

Full-preterism, as I understand it, is not a new doctrine, but an old heresy. Yes, I regard it as a heresy. It is profane and vain babbling put forth by untaught and unstable men and women. Preterism, for all its intricacies, teaches the ressurection is already past. This is the error of Hymenaeus and Philetus who also taught the same. 2 Timothy 2:16-19.

These modern-day folks also have errored concerning the truth. And the foundation of God still stands, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let everyone that nameth the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.

Also, let us take the admonishment of the Holy Spirit to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." And also, to shun this full-preterism babbling.

RB

 

[Grasshopper]

Yet, being just toward the men quoated concerning the above passages, they ought not to be used to give any sort of weight at all to full preterism. I cannot speak completely regarding Albert Barnes or Adam Clarke, but I know concerning John Gill that he did not hold the view of what is called preterism or full-preterism today.

None are full preterists. But you failed to mention if you agree with their views on the Olivet Discourse which was the purpose of the post.

Full-preterism, as I understand it, is not a new doctrine, but an old heresy. Yes, I regard it as a heresy.

Maybe, maybe not. But one must prove the accusation. As my old coach used to say, "talk is cheap".

It is profane and vain babbling put forth by untaught and unstable men and women.

Not a very intelligent statement. Shows how little you have been exposed to full-preterists. What do you find Here that is profane, vain babblings and taught by an unstable and untaught man:
http://www.sovereigngracebible.org/

Preterism, for all its intricacies, teaches the ressurection is already past. This is the error of Hymenaeus and Philetus who also taught the same. 2 Timothy 2:16-19.

They would say: http://charlescoty.com/user/Covenant Eschatology and the Hymenaean Heresy - Don Preston.pdf

These modern-day folks also have errored concerning the truth. And the foundation of God still stands, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let everyone that nameth the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.

Did Gill and Barnes and Clarke err in their interpretation of Matt. 24? If so how?

Also, let us take the admonishment of the Holy Spirit to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." And also, to shun this full-preterism babbling.

Do full preterists not study?

I think you'll find Sam Frost quite intelligent and has done his share of studying:
http://thereignofchrist.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=38&Itemid=48

Whether the FP are correct I'm not sure, but thier case is as strong or stronger than any I've studied. And yes, I spent 6 years studying the subject so just simply dismissing a view with verbal jabs and without exegesis does nothing for me anymore.

In fact I have found the comments of Gill, Owen,Spurgeon and many others lead to the very doorstep of preterism if followed to their consistent end.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

None are full preterists. But you failed to mention if you agree with their views on the Olivet Discourse which was the purpose of the post.



Maybe, maybe not. But one must prove the accusation. As my old coach used to say, "talk is cheap".



Not a very intelligent statement. Shows how little you have been exposed to full-preterists. What do you find Here that is profane, vain babblings and taught by an unstable and untaught man:
http://www.sovereigngracebible.org/




They would say: http://charlescoty.com/user/Covenant Eschatology and the Hymenaean Heresy - Don Preston.pdf



Did Gill and Barnes and Clarke err in their interpretation of Matt. 24? If so how?


Do full preterists not study?

I think you'll find Sam Frost quite intelligent and has done his share of studying:
http://thereignofchrist.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=38&Itemid=48

Whether the FP are correct I'm not sure, but thier case is as strong or stronger than any I've studied. And yes, I spent 6 years studying the subject so just simply dismissing a view with verbal jabs and without exegesis does nothing for me anymore.

In fact I have found the comments of Gill, Owen,Spurgeon and many others lead to the very doorstep of preterism if followed to their consistent end.

And men have taken the comments of Gill and others, whoever they may be, and run them into all kinds of error. I read breifly the response of the preterist, who styles himself after the term Covenant Eschatology (quite misleading in my opinion) and in the end just asserts that the resurrection is past, placing himself under the condemnation of Scripture, teaching a cankerous doctrine, falling into error, which does destroy the faith of some. Full-preterism must insist on a spiritual-only ressurection to accomplish their view. In my opinion, these men wrest and squeeze every text of Scripture that is contrary to their view to fit their own. It is a heterodox theology, recent in history, contrary to all orthodox creeds and the commentaries of the divines, against the teaching of the church fathers, and antognistic to biblical Christianity.

Full-preterism, or hyper-preterism, or whatever it is called (it matters not to me) stands on the outside of the orthodox and historical faith of Christ. It is to be shunned, refuted, rejected, and cast out as a canker.

RB

PS. Concerning my own beliefs reference the 1689 London Baptist Confession. There is a link in my signature.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Grasshopper,

Let's just cut the nonsense. If you defend the full-preterism view (which it seems you do) then tell us all plainly: Do you affirm or deny a future physical ressurection of the bodies of both the just and unjust?

RB

 

[Grasshopper]

And men have taken the comments of Gill and others, whoever they may be, and run them into all kinds of error.

What error? Gill says the events of AD70 were a "coming of the son of man" was he right? You never answered the question. Owen says 2 Peter speaks of the end of the Mosaic economy not the end of the world. Do you agree? Spurgeon says the Tribulation was in the events of AD70, do you agree?

Dispies say all those events occur at the time of Christ's return. Do you agree?

Full preterists say they are both right.

I read breifly the response of the preterist, who styles himself after the term Covenant Eschatology (quite misleading in my opinion) and in the end just asserts that the resurrection is past, placing himself under the condemnation of Scripture, teaching a cankerous doctrine, falling into error, which does destroy the faith of some.

Know of anyone's whose faith has been destroyed?

Full-preterism must insist on a spiritual-only ressurection to accomplish their view. In my opinion, these men wrest and squeeze every text of Scripture that is contrary to their view to fit their own. It is a heterodox theology, recent in history, contrary to all orthodox creeds and the commentaries of the divines, against the teaching of the church fathers, and antognistic to biblical Christianity.

Ever heard of sola scriptura? Strange coming from someone who says they are Reformed. If I believed in the authority if creeds and councils I'd probably be a Catholic.

Full-preterism, or hyper-preterism, or whatever it is called (it matters not to me) stands on the outside of the orthodox and historical faith of Christ. It is to be shunned, refuted, rejected, and cast out as a canker.

Yet you don't refute it with scripture. Was Gill wrong in placing a "coming of the son of man" in the events of AD70?

PS. Concerning my own beliefs reference the 1689 London Baptist Confession. There is a link in my signature.[/quote

]

It is one thing to have beliefs, it is yet another to explain and defend those beliefs.

 

[skypair]

grasshopper,

A couple of accusations you seem to be "dodging."

1) The resurrection has already come and Paul turned those who taught such over to Satan that they learn not to blaspheme.

2) You are destroying the faith of anyone who believes you. That is what Paul said was the result of Hymenaeus teaching. That is why Paul turned him over to Satan. Are you denying scripture truth? On what authority?

skypair

 

[Grasshopper]

grasshopper,

A couple of accusations you seem to be "dodging."

1) The resurrection has already come and Paul turned those who taught such over to Satan that they learn not to blaspheme.

2) You are destroying the faith of anyone who believes you. That is what Paul said was the result of Hymenaeus teaching. That is why Paul turned him over to Satan. Are you denying scripture truth? On what authority?

skypair

I'm dodging nothing. I actually answer questions presented to me unlike others.

1.Paul was correct in saying the resurrection had not yet come.
2.I do not deny scriptural truth. Do you?

I ask you, are the resurrection, tribulation, coming of the son of man and the dissolution of the heavens all events that occur within the same time frame not sepatated by 1000's of years?

 

[JDale]

What error? Gill says the events of AD70 were a "coming of the son of man" was he right? You never answered the question. Owen says 2 Peter speaks of the end of the Mosaic economy not the end of the world. Do you agree? Spurgeon says the Tribulation was in the events of AD70, do you agree?

Dispies say all those events occur at the time of Christ's return. Do you agree?

Full preterists say they are both right.





Know of anyone's whose faith has been destroyed?




Ever heard of sola scriptura? Strange coming from someone who says they are Reformed. If I believed in the authority if creeds and councils I'd probably be a Catholic.




Yet you don't refute it with scripture. Was Gill wrong in placing a "coming of the son of man" in the events of AD70?


]

It is one thing to have beliefs, it is yet another to explain and defend those beliefs.

Lemme see if I can succinctly answer some of these questions:

Was Gill wrong about AD70 being "a coming of the son of man"? YES.
Was Owen wrong about 2 Peter? YES
Was Spurgeon right about the events of 70AD being the Tribulation? NO.
Do Dispies agree these events are tied to Jesus' 2nd Coming? YES -- IN THE FUTURE.
Know of anyone whose faith was destroyed? YES -- at least Paul did. Many in Thessalonica.
Do you believe in Sola Scriptura? YES -- which is why I reject a spurious doctrine teaching Jesus has already come.
Was Gill wrong in placing the 2nd Coming in the events of 70AD (Reprise)? YES


John wrote Revelation around 95AD, some 25 years after Jerusalem fell and the Temple was destroyed. His cry was, "Even so, Lord Come!" To [mis]understand Matthew as Preterists do is to ignore the evidence of the later dated Johannine writings, and so to fall into the error many Thessalonicans did.
Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers,
not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come (II Thessalonians 2:1,2).

JDale