• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Questioning My belief in pre trib rapture

Status
Not open for further replies.

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
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.

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.

Those who have part in the First Resurrection, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, are all those who have been redeemed by his sacrifice.

I don't care whether you have read Darby or not. You claim to be a 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.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.

In 1 Corinthians the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not called the "first" resurrection but rather the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the saints raised when he was raised and were seen about the city are called the "firstfruits" of the same resurrection. It is this very same resurrection, which Christ and other were the "firstfruits" that occurs at his coming, but then cometh "the end" or "when" the termination of the kingdom of God on earth "when" Christ hands it over to the Father and "when" death is cast into the lake of fire and destroyed at the same time the "second" resurrection of "the dead" occurs (Rev. 20:12-15) which occurs AFTER the first resurrection. Of this "second" resurrection none of those in the "first" resurrection (including the "firstfruits" of it) have anything to do with.

BTW for your information I am not a pre-tribber.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
In 1 Corinthians the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not called the "first" resurrection but rather the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the saints raised when he was raised and were seen about the city are called the "firstfruits" of the same resurrection. It is this very same resurrection, which Christ and other were the "firstfruits" that occurs at his coming, but then cometh "the end" or "when" the termination of the kingdom of God on earth "when" Christ hands it over to the Father and "when" death is cast into the lake of fire and destroyed at the same time the "second" resurrection of "the dead" occurs (Rev. 20:12-15) which occurs AFTER the first resurrection. Of this "second" resurrection none of those in the "first" resurrection (including the "firstfruits" of it) have anything to do with.

BTW for your information I am not a pre-tribber.

There is nothing in 1 Corinthians 15 which indicates that the saints who came out of the grave after the resurrection of Jesus Christ are included. There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that the saints who came out of the grave glorified bodies like that of Jesus Christ. There is no Scripture to indicate that these Saints were taken to heaven or returned to the grave.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hello Everyone. I have been doing a bible study on the prophecies of the second coming and today I was reading Matthew 24 and it spoke about the elect and it makes me wonder if the elect means Christians and if that is so does that mean We will be in the trbulation?

22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.

The other thing that makes Me wonder is 1 Thessalonians 4:16

16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever

Id like some opinion on this . Thanks for reading and responding. God Bless

As you can see, opinions vary with some on both sides claiming their view is truth and the other side is simply wrong. :)

I think too much focus on end times sequence results in taking us away from our job as ambassadors of Christ. We have the pre-tribbers firing away at the post tribbers, with the mid-tribbers and pre-wrathers ducking for cover. Will anything be resolved?

Mean-while, back at the ranch, we have those who have recently put their trust in Christ and need to taught "all" that Christ commanded. Are you prepared to do that?
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There is nothing in 1 Corinthians 15 which indicates that the saints who came out of the grave after the resurrection of Jesus Christ are included. There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that the saints who came out of the grave glorified bodies like that of Jesus Christ. There is no Scripture to indicate that these Saints were taken to heaven or returned to the grave.

Regardless of that, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is called the "firstfruits" of the resurrection of the saints. The firstfruits of a crop of corn or grapes was not part of another harvest but of the same harvest. Paul does not call the resurrection of Jesus Christ "the first" resurrection but the "firstfruits."

Furthermore, "then cometh the end" is explicitly defined by the series of "when....when......when......when" that follow which pin pointing its precise time at the Great White judgement scene "when" death is cast into the lake of fire thus the last enemy is destroyed. Hence, then "cometh the end" which is found in context of resurrections is the "second" resurrection recorded in Revelation 20.
 

Jordan Kurecki

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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!

http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/when_was_the_pre_tribulation_rapture_taught.html

No it is not a fact of history, I just showed you the facts from history, Thomas Ice is wrong... period the end. Go look at the two examples I gave you.

And yes the pre trib rapture is supported by scripture, but you comply ignore than because of your faulty interpretation of John 5:28-29

Stop saying that Darby invented the Pre Trib Rapture, it's not true and you are flat out speaking information I have shown you to be wrong, if you say it again I have no choice but to believe that you are lying and being purposely deceptive.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
As you can see, opinions vary with some on both sides claiming their view is truth and the other side is simply wrong. :)

I think too much focus on end times sequence results in taking us away from our job as ambassadors of Christ. We have the pre-tribbers firing away at the post tribbers, with the mid-tribbers and pre-wrathers ducking for cover. Will anything be resolved?

Mean-while, back at the ranch, we have those who have recently put their trust in Christ and need to taught "all" that Christ commanded. Are you prepared to do that?
The issue is not when the rapture occurs. Biblicist is not a pre-tribber, as he says and I basically agree with the rest of what he says. OR has taken a completely different stance which ignores much of scripture. That is the problem.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/when_was_the_pre_tribulation_rapture_taught.html

No it is not a fact of history, I just showed you the facts from history, Thomas Ice is wrong... period the end. Go look at the two examples I gave you.

And yes the pre trib rapture is supported by scripture, but you comply ignore than because of your faulty interpretation of John 5:28-29

Stop saying that Darby invented the Pre Trib Rapture, it's not true and you are flat out speaking information I have shown you to be wrong, if you say it again I have no choice but to believe that you are lying and being purposely deceptive.



Ephraem the Syrian and Morgan Edwards may have preached the pre-trib-rapture but they both preached false doctrine. The truth is that there is not a single verse of Scripture that clearly supports a pre-trib-removal of the church.

The fact that these men preached a false doctrine is irrelevant to my argument. History credits John Nelson Darby as the father of pre-trib-dispensationalism whether you like it or not!

Furthermore, my interpretation of John 5:28, 29 is correct. The only way dispensationalists can get two resurrections out of that passage is to ignore the much vaunted dispensational hermeneutic of taking Scripture at Face Value as Charles Ryrie likes to say!

I would also note that most Baptist Confessions of Faith also teach a general resurrection and general judgment!
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
The issue is not when the rapture occurs. Biblicist is not a pre-tribber, as he says and I basically agree with the rest of what he says. OR has taken a completely different stance which ignores much of scripture. That is the problem.

You are wrong. Pre-rib-dispensationalism is false doctrine. The teaching that Jesus Christ died for a "parenthesis", an interruption in God's purpose for apostate Israel, is sacrilege if not worse in my opinion. You say you don't believe in the doctrine of a "parenthesis" church. Just what do you believe Jesus Christ died for? Scripture says He died for the Church.

Furthermore, as I noted in the previous post, most Baptist Confessions of Faith teach a general resurrection and general judgment!
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
You are wrong. Pre-rib-dispensationalism is false doctrine. The teaching that Jesus Christ died for a "parenthesis", an interruption in God's purpose for apostate Israel, is sacrilege if not worse in my opinion. You say you don't believe in the doctrine of a "parenthesis" church. Just what do you believe Jesus Christ died for? Scripture says He died for the Church.

Furthermore, as I noted in the previous post, most Baptist Confessions of Faith teach a general resurrection and general judgment!
1. You have the "I am right and everyone else is wrong syndrome.
2. You continue to make falsehoods even when you have been corrected a countless number of times.
3. "Jesus died for a "parenthesis,"...." No one said he did. This is one of you perpetuated falsehoods. I never said this. I don't think RevMitchell or Biblicist has. You simply keep parroting this lie.
4. "Jesus died for the Church." No, I don't agree with your ecclesiology. But that is another can of worms. He died for churches such as the church of Ephesus when he made that statement (Acts 20:28). But you don't care about context. He also said that he will come for his bride (all believers).
5. The Bible is my authority (sola sciptura), not other creeds and confessions. I really don't care what they say.

It is difficult to talk to a person who continues to post falsehoods and then doesn't fairly represent the other person's beliefs when he does post.
 

The Archangel

Well-Known Member
It is difficult to talk to a person who continues to post falsehoods and then doesn't fairly represent the other person's beliefs when he does post.

You would do well to remember this yourself for occasions other than this present discussion.

You are wrong. Pre-rib-dispensationalism is false doctrine. The teaching that Jesus Christ died for a "parenthesis", an interruption in God's purpose for apostate Israel, is sacrilege if not worse in my opinion. You say you don't believe in the doctrine of a "parenthesis" church. Just what do you believe Jesus Christ died for? Scripture says He died for the Church.

Furthermore, as I noted in the previous post, most Baptist Confessions of Faith teach a general resurrection and general judgment!

"False doctrine" is far too strong a statement. I don't agree with Pre-trib Dispys on eschatology, but--if we understand that when the Bible discusses "false doctrine" it is almost without exception disqualifying from the faith--it is not damning to hold to such a position.

Pre-trib Dispy eschatology may be wrong, but since eschatology is not a first or second-order issue, it really doesn't (and cannot) rise to the level of "false doctrine." Now, if the Pre-trib Dispys denied that Christ would return at all... that would be "false doctrine."

The Archangel
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
"False doctrine" is far too strong a statement. I don't agree with Pre-trib Dispys on eschatology, but--if we understand that when the Bible discusses "false doctrine" it is almost without exception disqualifying from the faith--it is not damning to hold to such a position.

Pre-trib Dispy eschatology may be wrong, but since eschatology is not a first or second-order issue, it really doesn't (and cannot) rise to the level of "false doctrine." Now, if the Pre-trib Dispys denied that Christ would return at all... that would be "false doctrine."

The Archangel

I repeat my post #24:
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.

I believe the doctrine of pre-trib-dispensationalism that the Church for which Jesus Christ died is a "parenthesis", an interruption in God's purpose for Israel, is false doctrine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
1. You have the "I am right and everyone else is wrong syndrome.
That is like the pot calling the kettle black.

2. You continue to make falsehoods even when you have been corrected a countless number of times.
Then you should be able to point out a few.

3. "Jesus died for a "parenthesis,"...." No one said he did. This is one of you perpetuated falsehoods. I never said this. I don't think RevMitchell or Biblicist has. You simply keep parroting this lie.

From:http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=94639&highlight=parenthesis+Church

Following are remarks by Chafer and Ryrie. Lewis Sperry Chafer founded and served as the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, and was an influential proponent of Christian Dispensationalism in the early 20th century. Charles C. Ryrie is a Christian writer and theologian who served as professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary He is also the author of the Ryrie Study Bible.

"But for the Church intercalation -- which was wholly unforeseen and is wholly unrelated to any divine purpose which precedes it or which follows it. In fact, the new, hitherto unrevealed purpose of God in the outcalling of a heavenly people from Jews and Gentiles is so divergent with respect to the divine purpose toward Israel, which purpose preceded it and will yet follow it, that the term parenthetical, commonly employed to describe the new age-purpose, is inaccurate. A parenthetical portion sustains some direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows; but the present age-purpose is not thus related and therefore is more properly termed an intercalation" [emphasis added] (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:41; 5:348-349).

Charles Ryrie says the same thing: "Classic dispensationalists used the words 'parenthesis' or 'intercalation' to describe the distinctiveness of the church in relation to God's program for Israel. An intercalation is an insertion of a period of time in a calendar, and a parenthesis in one sense is defined as an interlude or interval (which in turn is defined as an intervening or interruptive period). So either or both words can be appropriately used to define the church age if one sees it as a distinct interlude in God's program for Israel (as clearly taught in Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks in 9:24-27)" (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press 1995] p.134).

http://twonewcovenants.com/covenant/covenant1.html

Then there are the remarks of Harry A. Ironside former pastor of the Moody Memorial Church in Chicago. The quote is from the preface to his book, The Great Parenthesis.

The contents of the present volume are really an enlargement of lectures on Bible prophecy that have been given at various conferences during the past few years. It was never convenient to have these stenographically reported at the time of their delivery, and so the substance of the addresses has been very carefully gone over and is now presented for the consideration of those who are interested in the revelation which the Spirit of God has given concerning things to come.It is the author's fervent conviction that the failure to understand what is revealed in Scripture concerning the Great Parenthesis between Messiah's rejection, with the consequent setting aside of Israel nationally, and the regathering of God's earthly people and recognition by the Lord in the last days, is the fundamental cause for many conflicting and unscriptural prophetic teachings. Once this parenthetical period is understood and the present work of God during this age is apprehended, the whole prophetic program unfolds with amazing clearness.

http://www.biblesupport.com/e-sword-...t-parenthesis/

Charles C Ryrie writing in his book Dispensationalism regarding the Progressive Dispensational movement states on page 134.

Classic dispensationalism used the words parenthesis or intercalation to describe the distinctiveness of the church in relation to God's program for Israel. An intercalation is an insertion of a period of time in a calendar and a parenthesis in one sense is defined as an interlude or interval (which in turn is defined as an intervening or interruptive period). So either or both words can be appropriately used to define the church age if one sees it as a distinct interlude in God's program for Israel (as clearly taught in Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks in 9:24--27).

Progressive/modified/revisionist dispensationalism wishes to discard the word parenthesis, implying that it means that the church is something lesser in God's plan, an afterthought. Of course, the dictionary definition does not support this meaning. Instead, the church is submerged into the broader kingdom concept and called a "functional outpost of God's kingdom" and a "sneak preview" of the future kingdom.”

I must state as forcefully as I can that I find the doctrine of the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, as a parenthesis or an intercalation, in God’s program for Israel to be repugnant and I reject it completely. However, I totally reject the comment made by one individual who refused to retract the following statement even after being confronted with the above statements by learned Classic Dispensationalists. I have noted before that I am surrounded by Baptists who are “Rapture Ready” dispensationalists. I would no more question their Salvation than I would my own.

Whoever said that has no reverence for God, and is speaking as an unsaved individual. There is nothing done in the providence of God that is "an afterthought." No dispensationalist would agree with the above assessment. It is just a foolish random rambling said from one who is not using his brain.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthre...=94418&page=13

I have and will eagerly debate the Rapture Ready dispensationalists regarding their eschatology which I believe to be incorrect. However, as far as I am concerned any error in dispensational eschatology pales in comparison to the claim that the Church is a parenthesis, an intercalation, in God’s program for Israel. I would note at this time what the Baptist Faith and Message adopted in 2000 says about the Church:

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

4. "Jesus died for the Church." No, I don't agree with your ecclesiology. But that is another can of worms. He died for churches such as the church of Ephesus when he made that statement (Acts 20:28). But you don't care about context. He also said that he will come for his bride (all believers).

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Jesus Christ also taught a general resurrection and judgment in John 5:28, 29.

5. The Bible is my authority (sola sciptura), not other creeds and confessions. I really don't care what they say.
Then produce one verse of Scripture that teaches a pre-trib-removal of the church or teaches that the Church is a "parenthesis" in God's purpose for apostate Israel.

It is difficult to talk to a person who continues to post falsehoods and then doesn't fairly represent the other person's beliefs when he does post.
You have never fairly represented my beliefs in any discussion we have had. You take the typical dispensational approach that anyone who does not agree with you is wrong and their salvation is questionable.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Then produce one verse of Scripture that teaches a pre-trib-removal of the church or teaches that the Church is a "parenthesis" in God's purpose for apostate Israel.
You can see how ridiculous this post is right here.
Go back to my previous post. You keep up this false rant.
No one HERE, as in me, RevMitchell, or Biblicist, has ever conceded (to my knowledge) in the belief of what you term "the Church is a parenthesis..."
This is a lie that you keep on perpetuating. I told you that in my previous post, and yet you have done it again. Why?
Is it because you think we must conform to your authorities??
Not everyone thinks alike. Not every dispensationalist holds exactly the same views. You don't seem to understand these things.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
You can see how ridiculous this post is right here.
Go back to my previous post. You keep up this false rant.
No one HERE, as in me, RevMitchell, or Biblicist, has ever conceded (to my knowledge) in the belief of what you term "the Church is a parenthesis..."
This is a lie that you keep on perpetuating. I told you that in my previous post, and yet you have done it again. Why?
Is it because you think we must conform to your authorities??
Not everyone thinks alike. Not every dispensationalist holds exactly the same views. You don't seem to understand these things.

The early proponents, or authorities, of Darby's pre-trib-dispensationalism including Scofield, Chafer, Ironside, Pentecost and more recently Walvoord and Ryrie taught that the Church was an interruption, a "parenthesis", an intercalation, in God's purpose for Israel, or should I say apostate Israel. The concept of the "parenthesis" church is the outcome of Darby's pre-trib-removal of the church.

Now the fact that you are ignorant of pre-trib-dispensational doctrine yet still support that doctrine does not speak well of you. This is similar to the blind adherence of millions of Roman Catholics to a doctrine of which they are basically ignorant. Very sad indeed.

Thankfully, though good ole Mitch calls it the dumbest statement ever, there is a movement, called progressive dispensationalism, away from the pre-trib-dispensational teaching of a "parenthesis" church.

And I eagerly await that single passage of Scripture that clearly teaches a pre-trib-removal of the Church, just one will do!
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
The early proponents, or authorities, of Darby's pre-trib-dispensationalism including Scofield, Chafer, Ironside, Pentecost and more recently Walvoord and Ryrie taught that the Church was an interruption, a "parenthesis", an intercalation, in God's purpose for Israel, or should I say apostate Israel. The concept of the "parenthesis" church is the outcome of Darby's pre-trib-removal of the church.

Now the fact that you are ignorant of pre-trib-dispensational doctrine yet still support that doctrine does not speak well of you. This is similar to the blind adherence of millions of Roman Catholics to a doctrine of which they are basically ignorant. Very sad indeed.

Thankfully, though good ole Mitch calls it the dumbest statement ever, there is a movement, called progressive dispensationalism, away from the pre-trib-dispensational teaching of a "parenthesis" church.

And I eagerly await that single passage of Scripture that clearly teaches a pre-trib-removal of the Church, just one will do!
Why do you so naively assume that I MUST agree with all your supposed authorities just because I am a dispensationalist? You are wrong. I don't agree with all these men. You will have to find out what I believe and stop making false accusations.
RevMitchell has told you the same thing.
Biblicist has told you the same thing.
Yet, you continue to tell us we believe things we do not believe.
Grow up!
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Yet, you continue to tell us we believe things we do not believe.
That is false. I have never tried to tell you what you believe. I have simply posted facts about the doctrine of Darby's pre-trib-dispensationalism.


Perhaps it is you who need to grow up, in the faith that is!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
That is false. I have never tried to tell you what you believe. I have simply posted facts about the doctrine of Darby's pre-trib-dispensationalism.
And so? I have never read Darby. Why do you assume I believe everything Darby believes? I don't. Do you believe everything Calvin believes?
I am not a "Darbyite." Don't falsely accuse me of believing things I don't believe.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
And so? I have never read Darby. Why do you assume I believe everything Darby believes? I don't. Do you believe everything Calvin believes?
I am not a "Darbyite." Don't falsely accuse me of believing things I don't believe.

Repeating one more time!

That is false. I have never tried to tell you what you believe. I have simply posted facts about the doctrine of Darby's pre-trib-dispensationalism.

Perhaps it is you who need to grow up, in the faith that is!

And you are a "pre-trib-dispensationalist" are you not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top