Questioning My belief in pre trib rapture

[OldRegular]

And he is right. MacArthur harmonizes them all--all five, so that there are really only two resurrections in that passage.

Walvoord says seven. Who is correct?

Well the truth is that both are wrong no matter how they try to spin it!

 

[The Archangel]

Several things said here have generated much more heat than light....

In final eschatological analysis, it does not matter whether Dispensational Pre-trib, Historic Pre-Mil, or A-mil is correct. Our hope is not in Jesus' return--though we should always be ready for it, praying for it, and looking for it. Instead, our great hope is the Resurrection--no matter when, where, or how it happens.

I'm fairly well an A-mil guy... But, in reality, there is far too much ink and electrons spilled over this issue as if it were a doctrine on the same level as the trinity, the divinity of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, etc. It simply does not rise to that level of importance.

That the poster in the OP is searching is a very good thing. Regardless of what we might believe about eschatology, it is important to know exactly what we believe, why we believe it, what the Scripture means when it talks about eschatological realities, and how to differ with one another respectfully and winsomely on this issue.

Many have said--Mark Dever, specifically--if your eschatological position is dogmatified in your church's or denomination's statement of faith, it is likely sinful to make such a dogmatic statement (and, therefore, a separation) where Scripture makes no such dogma.

The important thing is to affirm that Christ will return, not the manner and time of that return.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[quantumfaith]

Several things said here have generated much more heat than light....

In final eschatological analysis, it does not matter whether Dispensational Pre-trib, Historic Pre-Mil, or A-mil is correct. Our hope is not in Jesus' return--though we should always be ready for it, praying for it, and looking for it. Instead, our great hope is the Resurrection--no matter when, where, or how it happens.

I'm fairly well an A-mil guy... But, in reality, there is far too much ink and electrons spilled over this issue as if it were a doctrine on the same level as the trinity, the divinity of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, etc. It simply does not rise to that level of importance.

That the poster in the OP is searching is a very good thing. Regardless of what we might believe about eschatology, it is important to know exactly what we believe, why we believe it, what the Scripture means when it talks about eschatological realities, and how to differ with one another respectfully and winsomely on this issue.

Many have said--Mark Dever, specifically--if your eschatological position is dogmatified in your church's or denomination's statement of faith, it is likely sinful to make such a dogmatic statement (and, therefore, a separation) where Scripture makes no such dogma.

The important thing is to affirm that Christ will return, not the manner and time of that return.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Kudos, well stated.

 

[OldRegular]

Several things said here have generated much more heat than light....

In final eschatological analysis, it does not matter whether Dispensational Pre-trib, Historic Pre-Mil, or A-mil is correct. Our hope is not in Jesus' return--though we should always be ready for it, praying for it, and looking for it. Instead, our great hope is the Resurrection--no matter when, where, or how it happens.

I'm fairly well an A-mil guy... But, in reality, there is far too much ink and electrons spilled over this issue as if it were a doctrine on the same level as the trinity, the divinity of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, etc. It simply does not rise to that level of importance.

That the poster in the OP is searching is a very good thing. Regardless of what we might believe about eschatology, it is important to know exactly what we believe, why we believe it, what the Scripture means when it talks about eschatological realities, and how to differ with one another respectfully and winsomely on this issue.

Many have said--Mark Dever, specifically--if your eschatological position is dogmatified in your church's or denomination's statement of faith, it is likely sinful to make such a dogmatic statement (and, therefore, a separation) where Scripture makes no such dogma.

The important thing is to affirm that Christ will return, not the manner and time of that return.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Very well said and much appreciated.

I have said on many occasions on this BB that, though I disagree with classic dispensational eschatology, I believe that the gravest error in this pre-trib-dispensationalism is their belief in a "parenthesis" church; that the Church for which Jesus Christ died is an interruption in God's purpose for Israel. Many "rapture ready" dispensationalists on this BB greatly resent that being noted and refuse to discuss any basis for that doctrine. I have routinely presented quotations from leading classic pre-trib-dispensational scholars? who hold that doctrine. It seems from what Thomas Ice writes about John Nelson Darby that he is the granddaddy of this doctrine. I have posted in recent months a number of remarks from Ice's writing about Darby.

I have also said on this BB that I do not believe ones eschatology should become a matter of fellowship in the Church. However, that is not what some folks believe or practice. The normal response from some of these pre-tribbers in my neck of the woods is that if you are not "rapture ready" you don't believe the Bible. Now that is dogmatic but I can be dogmatic and am generally willing to discuss their eschatology either on the BB or in person!

The sad truth is that many of these 'Rapture Ready" folks really do not know the basis for their belief. They simply have heard it taught for years. It is my belief that the Scofield Bible has caused nothing but trouble in the Baptist denomination as well as several others churches.

Thankfully there is a movement in dispensationalism circles away from the classic dispensational doctrine of the "parenthesis" church and more toward the historic or covenant premillennial doctrine of eschatology and the Church.

 

[Revmitchell]

Thankfully there is a movement in dispensationalism circles away from the classic dispensational doctrine of the "parenthesis" church and more toward the historic or covenant premillennial doctrine of eschatology and the Church.

That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Where is this so called movement and who is in it.

 

[OldRegular]

Progressive Dispensationalism

That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Where is this so called movement and who is in it.

Many thanks for your Christ-like remarks. They are certainly appreciated on this day before Thanksgiving!

Today there is a growing movement within dispensational theology that is gaining influence among some leading dispensational seminaries and churches across the land. It is called “Progressive Dispensationalism.” Traditional dispensationalism has always maintained a clear distinction between Israel and the Church, and that the Messianic Kingdom, of which the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7:8–16; Ps. 89) is a main feature, still is a future earthly event that will occur when Christ returns to Jerusalem to reign over the earth for 1,000 years (Rev. 19:11 – 20:1–6).

However, proponents of Progressive Dispensationalism have changed some of this with their interpretation of Acts 2 (particularly verses 30–36). They teach from Acts 2:30 that the throne of God in heaven where Jesus now sits is the throne of David. Hence, Jesus is currently reigning from David’s throne in heaven, and the Messianic Kingdom is now inaugurated and is beginning to be fulfilled! What was once clearly a future event is now, somehow, a present reality. This is a disturbing departure from a normal literal understanding of Bible prophecy that views the Throne of David as an earthly throne Christ will sit on and reign from Jerusalem when He returns (Is. 2:1–5; Ezk. 43:1–7).

http://www.levitt.com/essays/progdisp

Summary of PD Positions

1. One plan of salvation: There is only one plan of redemption, not one for Israel and a different one for Christians. There is only one New Covenant, not two. The redemptive plan is revealed through God’s covenants. It begins with Abraham’s covenant, which combines physical and spiritual promises. David’s covenant, as developed by the later prophets also has redemptive application, since the Savior would be the Son of David. The New Covenant obtains redemption in fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic. The redemptive plan is holistic, not manifold.

2. Four dispensations: There are four dispensations:
Patriarchal
Mosaic
Ecclesial (Church)
Zionic (subdivided into millennial and eternal-kingdom phases.)

3. One people of God: The Christian Church is quite distinct from Israel, but not radically distinct. The Church is not a mere “parenthesis” in an otherwise-Jewish divine plan. The Church is not “Plan B”. It is not a separate category of humanity, in the way the Bible speaks of Jews or Greeks. There is continuity between the Church and Israel, not discontinuity alone. All believers from all dispensations are united in one general assembly in heaven (Hebrews 12.)

4. Complimentary hermeneutics: The old claim that a consistent grammatical-historical method of interpretation will always produce traditional dispensationalists is demonstrably untrue. The NT doesn’t follow Charles Ryrie’s definition of “consistent literalism” in the way that it handles OT prophecy. The NT often expands upon the OT prophecies, without contradicting their original contexts. Implications are developed from words which were not developed in the OT. PD calls this a “complementary” hermeneutic: The NT adds onto the OT prophecies in a way complementary to their original context.

5. Already/Not Yet: The Kingdom of God’s blessings are mostly reserved for Christ’s second advent, but parts of it are manifested today through the Holy Spirit. The geo-political aspects will occur in the future. The Church is grafted into some key aspects of the New Covenant (justification, the gift of the Spirit, resurrection hope), but the geo-political features for Israel have not yet happened.

6. Davidic Reign Now: Christ’s Davidic reign began in part when He ascended to the right hand of the Father. Some of the Davidic promises have been fulfilled, many others must wait until Christ returns. Salvation blessings are mediated to us through Jesus, who fulfilled Psalm 110:1-2. “Christ” and “Son of God” were both Davidic titles. Jesus’ priesthood is that of Melchizedek, an office originally given to David. Jesus’ Davidic kingship was the method by which God would fulfill all of His promises to Abraham (Luke 1:55)

http://www.endtimes.org/progressive_dispensationalism.html

Progressive Dispensationalism: A “Search for Definition.”

Progressive Dispensationalism (PD) is a hybrid of concepts borrowed from both dispensational and non-dispensational schemes. By “progressive” the leaders of this movement mean, not new or novel dispensationalism. In fact, they mean it as a description of its chief characteristic, which is to see a progression between the Testaments. That is to say, they favor continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament instead of the discontinuity that is the unavoidable outcome of sharply distinguishing Israel from the Church, a distinction that is drawn whenever G-H hermeneutics is allowed to investigate the prophetic texts of Scripture. Indeed, Blaising described it as “post-Essentialist” dispensationalism.

PD should be seen as a rapprochement, an olive branch extended to Covenant theology. The forces that brought it into being appear to be,

a. The issue of how the Old Testament is interpreted by the New
b. The impact of secular theorizing about the philosophy of language that many PD’s have been exposed to.
c. The lack of new scholarly works being produced by classic dispensationalists which address the postmodern context. This has produced a vacuum of scholarly interaction, which has in turn made it difficult for modern dispensationalists to develop their theology;
d. This problem has been exacerbated by a number of young dispensationalists going off to universities in Europe where the system is looked upon as sensationalistic, and often derided as unscholarly.

Some Divergences from Classic Dispensationalism.

Therefore, PD introduces significant changes in the normative system. For example, normative dispensational scholars like Charles Ryrie have noted that PD includes the eternal realm in its concept of history.This means that Eternity has been incorporated in the so-called “Zionic” dispensation (coupled with the Millennium). Leading progressive dispensationalist Darrell Bock has been quoted as declaring that progressives and covenant theologians (though not normative dispensationalists) share the same basic already/not yet hermeneutic. This means that they can no longer subscribe to any part of Ryrie’s proposed sine qua non of dispensationalism. They even have a section in their book, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church entitled, “Beyond the Sine Qua Non.”

Hermeneutically speaking, the following passage helps to bring out the different outlook taken by PD. We have inserted the names of leading hermeneutical theorists in order to show how thoroughly entrenched PD’s are in the landscape of modern hermeneutical theory:

Over the past three decades important developments have taken place in the evangelical perception and practice of historical and literary interpretation. Appreciation has grown for the historicity of both subject and object in the act of interpretation. This includes respect for the problem of historical distance [e.g. Lessing, Ricoeur] resulting in horizontal differences between text and interpreter [Gadamer, Ricoeur], the role of the interpreter’s preunderstanding [Schleiermacher, Gadamer], and methodological applications of the hermeneutical spiral [Gadamer, Thiselton]. Likewise, the role of community in interpretation is increasingly recognized [Fish, Derrida]. This leads to an awareness of the influence of tradition upon the interpreter’s preunderstanding [Gadamer, Ricoeur] as well as the broader dialogic context [Bakhtin, Vanhoozer] of interpretive questions and possible answers.​

In PD the Church is not an intercalation, so its distinction from Old Testament Israel becomes unclear to say the least. In a chapter devoted to PD, Ryrie demonstrates the knock-on effects of the beliefs of this new movement. Among these effects are, redefining the concept of “mystery” so that it is not a truth previously unrevealed in former ages, but is instead a truth previously unrealized; and making the baptism with the Holy Spirit an Old Testament work.This has already led one PD proponent (David Turner) to call the Church the “new Israel”.

Finally, progressives, utilizing a version of the “already/not yet” hermeneutic18, think that Christ is now seated upon the throne of David (citing, e.g., Psa.110). In other words, since the Melchisedekian priesthood of Christ has been inaugurated (Hebrews 5, 7), the promised Davidic reign, mentioned in the same Psalm, has already been inaugurated (seeming to run contrary to Rev. 3:21)! This completely re-jigs both the standard view of a Divine economy, and forces the progressive dispensationalist into employing his “complementary hermeneutic,” which is little more than admitting that the New Testament re-interprets the Old Testament.

These things considered it is hard to see progressive dispensationalism as anything else but a more literal form of historic premillennialism, and not a relative of dispensationalism at all. Indeed, one gets the distinct impression that many PD’s wish to distance themselves as far as possible from classic dispensationalists. For example, Blaising’s apology for what he calls “recent” dispensationalism ends up reading like an attempt to disengage himself from his dispensational predecessors. Interestingly, this is how it is taken by one of his Reformed critics.

http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/documents/articles/41/41.htm?x=x

You have had your lesson for today young man!

 

[Revmitchell]

Thanks for your Christ-like remarks. But what should one expect from a pre-tribber?





Live and learn mitch!

Your so called movement, progressive dispensationalism, is like a liberal trying to call himself a conservative. And yes it is dumb. No one takes it serious and no one considers it a "movement". Point # 3 in your previous post is a primary reason why. "The church is distinct but not radically distinct" what kind of junk is that?

Progressive is an appropriate name for it. Dispensational it is not in any way. So no it is not a movement.

 

[OldRegular]

Your so called movement, progressive dispensationalism, is like a liberal trying to call himself a conservative. And yes it is dumb. No one takes it serious and no one considers it a "movement". Point # 3 in your previous post is a primary reason why. "The church is distinct but not radically distinct" what kind of junk is that?

Progressive is an appropriate name for it. Dispensational it is not in any way. So no it is not a movement.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. The pre-trib-dispensational doctrine of the "parenthesis" church is a grievous error and will fade as the current believers in this grievous doctrine die out. I call your attention to one comment from the above info I presented to demonstrate this fact:

c. The lack of new scholarly works being produced by classic dispensationalists which address the postmodern context. This has produced a vacuum of scholarly interaction, which has in turn made it difficult for modern dispensationalists to develop their theology;

To say that Jesus Christ died for an "interruption in God's purpose for Israel" is a disgusting divisive doctrine! It undermines the Sovereignty of God over His Creation.and minimizes the redemptive death of Jesus Christ. May God grant it the fate it so richly deserves!

 

[OldRegular]

Your so called movement, progressive dispensationalism, is like a liberal trying to call himself a conservative. And yes it is dumb. No one takes it serious and no one considers it a "movement". Point # 3 in your previous post is a primary reason why. "The church is distinct but not radically distinct" what kind of junk is that?

Point #3 actually says it well: The Church is not a mere “parenthesis” in an otherwise-Jewish divine plan.

3. One people of God: The Christian Church is quite distinct from Israel, but not radically distinct. The Church is not a mere “parenthesis” in an otherwise-Jewish divine plan. The Church is not “Plan B”. It is not a separate category of humanity, in the way the Bible speaks of Jews or Greeks. There is continuity between the Church and Israel, not discontinuity alone. All believers from all dispensations are united in one general assembly in heaven (Hebrews 12.)

I have made this statement many times in a slightly different form. The Baptist Faith and Message [Section VI] adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, Georgia on June 14, 2000 states it as follows:

“The New Testament also speaks of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

 

[Revmitchell]

There are none so blind as those who will not see. The pre-trib-dispensational doctrine of the "parenthesis" church is a grievous error and will fade as the current believers in this grievous doctrine die out. I call your attention to one comment from the above info I presented to demonstrate this fact:

To say that Jesus Christ died for an "interruption in God's purpose for Israel" is a disgusting divisive doctrine! It undermines the Sovereignty of God over His Creation.and minimizes the redemptive death of Jesus Christ. May God grant it the fate it so richly deserves!

OK this does not address anything I said.

 

[Revmitchell]

Point #3 actually says it well: The Church is not a mere “parenthesis” in an otherwise-Jewish divine plan.



I have made this statement many times in a slightly different form. The Baptist Faith and Message [Section VI] adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, Georgia on June 14, 2000 states it as follows:

“The New Testament also speaks of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.” [/b][/size]

Again, none of this addresses anything I said. Further, did you know that there were both general and particular baptists on the BF&M committee and it was intentionally worded so that both sides could accept it?

 

[OldRegular]

Again, none of this addresses anything I said. Further, did you know that there were both general and particular baptists on the BF&M committee and it was intentionally worded so that both sides could accept it?

You made the following statement regarding my comments on the rise of progressive dispensationalism and its journey toward the truth:

That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Where is this so called movement and who is in it.

I have proven that you are wrong just as wrong as your pre-trib-dispensational doctrine, in particular that heinous doctrine which teaches that the Church, for which Jesus Christ endured the cross, is simply a "parenthesis", an interruption, in God's program for Israel!

 

[DHK]

Heh! You finally got something correct. Jesus Christ is the first and only resurrection to date. Those who have part in the First Resurrection are those saved through faith in Jesus Christ. Over these the second death has no power!

There is no indication in the Bible that indicates this was a raising with a glorified body or whether these people returned to the grave.

Could it, could it just be possible this is the pre-trib-rapture you people get so excited about? Could it?

Certainly Christians have endured tribulation for 2000 years just as Jesus Christ promised:

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.



Really there is just one more resurrection. The Bible teaches it, I believe it, John Nelson Darby and pre-rib-dispensationalism is simply wrong doctrine, especially their doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church, or God's interruption in His program for Israel!

So your answer is: "There is one more indicating more than one, or at least two of the resurrections that Walvoord mentioned in his list. You still cant' say that there is only one resurrection can you?
Your answer to the passage in Matthew is not a serious one. It is simply "Could it be?" "Could it be?" Yeah, I suppose it could have been--could have been a supersonic jet too. But I prefer to believe the Bible.

You haven't addressed the resurrection of the two prophets of Revelation 11. You totally ignore them.
--But you have failed in your answer "just one more." Your previous answer was "just one." You were wrong.

 

[OldRegular]

So your answer is: "There is one more indicating more than one, or at least two of the resurrections that Walvoord mentioned in his list. You still cant' say that there is only one resurrection can you?
Your answer to the passage in Matthew is not a serious one. It is simply "Could it be?" "Could it be?" Yeah, I suppose it could have been--could have been a supersonic jet too. But I prefer to believe the Bible.

Matthew, Matthew, what is your problem?

You haven't addressed the resurrection of the two prophets of Revelation 11. You totally ignore them.
--But you have failed in your answer "just one more." Your previous answer was "just one." You were wrong.

Either your memory is faulty or you are simply being misleading. I have always said there are two resurrections and only two. The FIRST is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Second is the resurrection of ALL the dead as God tells us in John 5:28, 29.

You can believe as you choose but actually you don't believe the Bible. You have put the pre-trib-doctrine of John Nelson Darby ahead of Scripture. That doctrine claims the Church, for which Jesus Christ endured the Cross, is a "parenthesis", an interruption, in God's program for apostate Israel. And that is the sad truth.

There is not a single passage of Scripture that supports the John Nelson Darby pre-trib-dispensational doctrine. Show us one passage of Scripture, just one, that clearly teaches a pre-trib removal of the Church. Show us one passage of Scripture, just one, which teaches that the Church, for which Jesus Christ endured the Cross, is a "parenthesis", an interruption, in God's program for apostate Israel. You cannot do it for they do not exist!

 

[DHK]

Matthew, Matthew, what is your problem?

Your problem is either a denial of scripture or you don't know how to answer it: which one?
Yes Matthew!
Here it is:
[FONT=&quot]Matthew 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.[/FONT]
--the bodies of the saints arose and appeared to many. That is what the Bible says! Do you believe it or not.
I note your "could it be answer," that simply doubts the veracity of the Bible:

There is no indication in the Bible that indicates this was a raising with a glorified body or whether these people returned to the grave.

Could it, could it just be possible this is the pre-trib-rapture you people get so excited about? Could it?

Certainly Christians have endured tribulation for 2000 years just as Jesus Christ promised:

The above is both: unbelief, denial and doubt all rolled in one. It is unacceptable.

Either your memory is faulty or you are simply being misleading. I have always said there are two resurrections and only two. The FIRST is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Second is the resurrection of ALL the dead as God tells us in John 5:28, 29.

That is not how you previously worded your position.

You can believe as you choose but actually you don't believe the Bible. You have put the pre-trib-doctrine of John Nelson Darby ahead of Scripture. That doctrine claims the Church, for which Jesus Christ endured the Cross, is a "parenthesis", an interruption, in God's program for apostate Israel. And that is the sad truth.

The sad truth is false innuendos and accusations which are not true but you keep on posting them anyway. This is unbecoming of a Christian.
1. I have never read Darby. Your accusation is false.
2. I have never heard of a "parenthesis church," of which you accuse me of believing nor have I ever admitted to believing in one. In fact I don't even believe in a universal church. So your accusation is entirely false and wrong. You need to apologize and repent.

There is not a single passage of Scripture that supports the John Nelson Darby pre-trib-dispensational doctrine. Show us one passage of Scripture, just one, that clearly teaches a pre-trib removal of the Church. Show us one passage of Scripture, just one, which teaches that the Church, for which Jesus Christ endured the Cross, is a "parenthesis", an interruption, in God's program for apostate Israel. You cannot do it for they do not exist!

I don't have to. I am not a follower of Darby. Until you get off that hobby horse of yours I don't have much to say to you.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

It is not there. The pre-trib-rapture is the invention of John Nelson Darby. He claims he found it in Isaiah 32!

From: http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf

I have corrected you before on Darby not being the one to originate the Pre-Trib Rapture. You are either ignorant or simply deceptive, but once more I will show you again this is not true:

From Wayoflife.org:
MORGAN EDWARDS (1722-1795)

The pre-tribulation Rapture was taught by prominent Baptist leader Morgan Edwards. His Two Academical Exercises on the Subjects Bearing the Following Titles; Millennium and Last-Novelties was published in 1744 in Philadelphia.

Morgan Edwards was one of the most prominent Baptist leaders of his day. He was the pastor of the Baptist church in Philadelphia and the founder of Brown University, the first Baptist college in America. A summary of life was featured in the Baptist Encyclopedia. He was one of the first Baptist historians of repute, his Materials Toward A History of the Baptists (1770) providing a foundation for all subsequent works.

Following is what Edwards believed about Bible prophecy:

“The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years. I say, somewhat more; because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ’s ‘appearing in the air’ (I Thes. iv. 17); and this will be about three years and a half before the millennium, as we shall see hereafter: but will he and they abide in the air all that time? No: they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many ‘mansions in the father's house’ (John xiv. 2), and disappear during the foresaid period of time. The design of this retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints; for ‘now the time is come that judgment must begin,’ and that will be ‘at the house of God’ (I Pet. iv. 17)” (Edwards, Two Academical Exercises on the Subjects Bearing the Following Titles; Millennium and Last-Novelties, 1744).

EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN (AD c. 303-373)

We now go back to two centuries after the apostles. Ephraem is venerated as a “saint” by the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but they would not allow him to teach his doctrine of prophecy today.

Ephraem is called “the Syrian” because he lived in that region.

He was a voluminous writer. Many of his sermons and psalms are included in the 16-volume Post-Nicene Library. (The Council of Nicea was held in AD 325, and historians divide the “fathers” into Ante-Nicene, before 325, and Post-Nicene, after 325).

Some of Ephraem’s sermons and hymns are used in the liturgy of Orthodox churches.

In the 1990s some of Ephraem’s writings were translated into English for the first time, one of these being On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World, A.D. 373.

The translation was done by Professor Cameron Rhoades of Tyndale Theological Seminary at the bequest of Grant R. Jeffrey. It was subsequently published in Jeffrey’s 1995 book Final Warning.

It is obvious that Ephraem believed in a literal fulfillment of prophecy, including a Rapture of New Testament saints prior to the Tribulation.

“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” (Ephraem the Syrian, On the Last Times).


...You no longer have an excuse to use the Darby excuse, and if I see you use it again I am going to call you our for your lying.

 

[OldRegular]

Your problem is either a denial of scripture or you don't know how to answer it: which one?
Yes Matthew!
Here it is:
[FONT=&quot]Matthew 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.[/FONT]
--the bodies of the saints arose and appeared to many. That is what the Bible says! Do you believe it or not.
I note your "could it be answer," that simply doubts the veracity of the Bible:

The above is both: unbelief, denial and doubt all rolled in one. It is unacceptable.

There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that these people were resurrected with glorified bodies. In fact Scripture indicates otherwise:

1 Corinthians 15:20-21
20. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
24. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

The above Scripture shows that Jesus Christ is the First Resurrection and there are no more resurrections until He returns. He has not yet returned so there have been no resurrections but His! For your information Jesus Christ was resurrected with a glorified body. That is what is necessary for a Biblical resurrection.

As for the "could it be the answer" I was simply having fun at dispensational expense! Please note my original comment:

Could it, could it just be possible this is the pre-trib-rapture you people get so excited about? Could it?

Certainly Christians have endured tribulation for 2000 years just as Jesus Christ promised:

That is not how you previously worded your position.

My position has always been that Jesus Christ is the FIRST RESURRECTION and that will be followed by the resurrection of all the dead as God states clearly in John 5:28, 29. If you can prove otherwise then do so.

The sad truth is false innuendos and accusations which are not true but you keep on posting them anyway. This is unbecoming of a Christian.
1. I have never read Darby. Your accusation is false.
2. I have never heard of a "parenthesis church," of which you accuse me of believing nor have I ever admitted to believing in one. In fact I don't even believe in a universal church. So your accusation is entirely false and wrong. You need to apologize and repent.

I don't care whether you have read Darby or not. You claim to be a classic pre-trib-dispensationalist. I have spelled out two grievous errors of Darby the inventor of pre-trib doctrine which includes the doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church.

I don't have to. I am not a follower of Darby. Until you get off that hobby horse of yours I don't have much to say to you.

Great! You have never said anything worthwhile anyhow!

 

[OldRegular]

I have corrected you before on Darby not being the one to originate the Pre-Trib Rapture. You are either ignorant or simply deceptive, but once more I will show you again this is not true:

From Wayoflife.org:
MORGAN EDWARDS (1722-1795)

The pre-tribulation Rapture was taught by prominent Baptist leader Morgan Edwards. His Two Academical Exercises on the Subjects Bearing the Following Titles; Millennium and Last-Novelties was published in 1744 in Philadelphia.

Morgan Edwards was one of the most prominent Baptist leaders of his day. He was the pastor of the Baptist church in Philadelphia and the founder of Brown University, the first Baptist college in America. A summary of life was featured in the Baptist Encyclopedia. He was one of the first Baptist historians of repute, his Materials Toward A History of the Baptists (1770) providing a foundation for all subsequent works.

Following is what Edwards believed about Bible prophecy:

“The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years. I say, somewhat more; because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ’s ‘appearing in the air’ (I Thes. iv. 17); and this will be about three years and a half before the millennium, as we shall see hereafter: but will he and they abide in the air all that time? No: they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many ‘mansions in the father's house’ (John xiv. 2), and disappear during the foresaid period of time. The design of this retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints; for ‘now the time is come that judgment must begin,’ and that will be ‘at the house of God’ (I Pet. iv. 17)” (Edwards, Two Academical Exercises on the Subjects Bearing the Following Titles; Millennium and Last-Novelties, 1744).

EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN (AD c. 303-373)

We now go back to two centuries after the apostles. Ephraem is venerated as a “saint” by the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but they would not allow him to teach his doctrine of prophecy today.

Ephraem is called “the Syrian” because he lived in that region.

He was a voluminous writer. Many of his sermons and psalms are included in the 16-volume Post-Nicene Library. (The Council of Nicea was held in AD 325, and historians divide the “fathers” into Ante-Nicene, before 325, and Post-Nicene, after 325).

Some of Ephraem’s sermons and hymns are used in the liturgy of Orthodox churches.

In the 1990s some of Ephraem’s writings were translated into English for the first time, one of these being On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World, A.D. 373.

The translation was done by Professor Cameron Rhoades of Tyndale Theological Seminary at the bequest of Grant R. Jeffrey. It was subsequently published in Jeffrey’s 1995 book Final Warning.

It is obvious that Ephraem believed in a literal fulfillment of prophecy, including a Rapture of New Testament saints prior to the Tribulation.

“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” (Ephraem the Syrian, On the Last Times).


...You no longer have an excuse to use the Darby excuse, and if I see you use it again I am going to call you our for your lying.

You post no link. However, Thomas Ice would disagree with you and I gave a link. You can find his writings on Darby easily. Call him a liar. I am sure he would really be upset!

Now it is a fact that history shows Darby is the inventor of pre-trib dispensationalism. If you can demonstrate that the preacher you mentioned is credited as being the inventor of pre-trib-dispensationalism then please do so! I certainly would not accuse Darby of doctrinal theft!

That being said, regardless of who teaches pre-trib-removal of the Church they cannot support it by a single passage of Scripture. Can you? If so then do so!

 

[DHK]

There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that these people were resurrected with glorified bodies. In fact Scripture indicates otherwise:

There is nothing BUT SCRIPTURE to say that they were not raised from the dead. It says "they arose." That is a plain statement of scripture not to be denied with unbelief. What do you think it means: "they arose...they appeared to others..." Did the others see "ghosts" OR? What?

1 Corinthians 15:20-21
20. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
24. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

The above Scripture shows that Jesus Christ is the First Resurrection and there are no more resurrections until He returns. He has not yet returned so there have been no resurrections but His! For your information Jesus Christ was resurrected with a glorified body. That is what is necessary for a Biblical resurrection.

Look carefully at what you posted:

Christ the firstfruits;

Firstfruits has a slightly different meaning than "first."

As for the "could it be the answer" I was simply having fun at dispensational expense! Please note my original comment:

It is called "not being accurate.

My position has always been that Jesus Christ is the FIRST RESURRECTION and that will be followed by the resurrection of all the dead as God states clearly in John 5:28, 29. If you can prove otherwise then do so.

Why is he called "the firstfruits"? Why is the word "firstfruits" plural?
Here is why:
1 Corinthians 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Christ is raised from the dead, and is become the first fruits of them that slept. His resurrection has been demonstrated, and our resurrection necessarily follows; as sure as the first fruits are the proof that there is a harvest, so surely the resurrection of Christ is a proof of ours. --Adam Clarke

Perhaps he is part of the same resurrection--not the one you think will happen as you interpret John five--but the harvest of the righteous. He is the firstfruits; those in Matthew that followed shortly after; then the saints in Christ. It is one harvest taken up at different times. Christ, the pre-eminent, arose first. He is our pledge, our security, the firstfruits of the harvest--the trust that we can look back upon that we too shall be raised in this great harvest of righteousness.

I don't care whether you have read Darby or not. You claim to be a classic pre-trib-dispensationalist. I have spelled out two grievous errors of Darby the inventor of pre-trib doctrine which includes the doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church.

Always the one to spread falsehoods when the opportunity arises.
I have only claimed to be dispensational in my theology. I never claimed to be a classic whatever. That is the label you put on me. You want to associate Darby with me so you will tell lies in order to do it. Shameful!

 

[OldRegular]

There is nothing BUT SCRIPTURE to say that they were not raised from the dead. It says "they arose." That is a plain statement of scripture not to be denied with unbelief. What do you think it means: "they arose...they appeared to others..." Did the others see "ghosts" OR? What?

John 11:43. And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

Jesus Christ told Lazarus to "come forth". Lazarus "arose" and "came forth." He appeared to Mary, Martha, and the rest of the folks! Did they see a ghost? Did Lazarus have a glorified body? Did he die again?