Scripture Supporting a Pretrib Removal of the Church

This is demonstrably false. In response to your opening post, I presented two passages that at the very least can support an pre trib rapture. When they are contextually exegeted, they almost inevitably lead to a pretrib rapture. In order to deny a pretrib rapture you have to do some strange things to the text. But your post illustrates what I suspect. You aren't really interested in what we believe and why we believe it. That doesn't make for good conversation.

 

You discussed this of Matt. 3:7. John the Baptist was not discuss about the time of great tribulation when he was talking to the Pharisees, he never say the term of 'great tribulation' to the Pharisees of Matt. 3:7. John, the Baptist warned them, they must repent of their sins, or they shall suffer the wrath of God- judgement go to everlasting fire according John 3:36.

Matt. 24:15-21 do nothing with the wrath. Christ does not discuss about the 'wrath' of Matt. 24:15-21. Christ warned them who dwell in Jerusalem, they must flee from their homes, because the terrible persecutions will hit them, if they return back to their houses, soldiers will catch them, and persecute against them or killed them. That why, Christ warned them do not go back to their homes, because of persecutions.

Abosuletly, Yes. It find in Hebrews 2:3 says,"How shall we escape if we neglect SO GREAT SALVATION; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him."

It warns us, how can we escape if we reject the gospel, that means, no way that we can escape the wrath of God & everlasting punishment while reject the gospel.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen! </font>[/QUOTE]It's amazing isn't it folks? The illiteracy MANIFESTED by these people is "wonderful". They CAN'T READ the text. They can't COMPARE the WORDS in the passges within the same book written by the same author to get the correct interpretation. They HAVE TO privately interpret them using "their interjected terms" in the passage to teach their BOGUS falsehood.

JOHN THE BAPTIST IS NOT SPEAKING ABOUT THE LAKE OF FIRE or EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION. What OUTRAGEOUS false interpretation.

He's speaking of the BAPTISM OF FIRE, which is the WRATH TO COME, i.e. the great tribulation, according to interpretation of FLEEING from Matthew. That FIRE concerns the DAY, which cometh, which shall burn as an oven! (Mal.4) That day is the TIME of Jacob's trouble, the GREAT TRIBULATION. (Jer.30) WITHIN THAT DAY, the Lord will come back in flaming fire taking vengeance on them. (2 Thess.1)


Matt.24 has nothing to do with wrath? ONLY IN THE EYES OF A MAN WHO CAN'T READ NOR COMPARE WORDS AND VERSE IN SIMILAR CONTEXTS. Luke 21 will demonstrate your ignorance once again.

Good grief! Now watch this poor soul MISS and CONFOUND the warning of ACTUAL RUNNING OUT OF JERUSALEM from the Abomination of Desolation to BELIEF of the message of the gospel of the kingdom which John, the Lord, and those who enter the tribulation will preach.

It just shows AGAIN that they have no idea what they are talking about. Wresting the scriptures is "habitually, continually, and pathologically" adhered to by such.

 

Carl,

Not necesscary for John the Baptist to warning Pharisees of hell, Joh the Baptist easy understand 'wrath' is speak of judgement direct come from God, in his common sense, that he understands 'wrath to come' is speak of the punishment with judgment, include punish go into hell. Not necesscary for John the Baptist to say of hell of Matt. 3:7.

But, notice Matt. 3:10 says, "And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."

This verse is refer with Matt. 7:17-19; John 15:6; and Romans 11:17-22.

John the Baptist told to Pharisees that they must repentance of their sins, or shall cast away into fire- everlasting fire(hell).

Obivous, John, the Baptist was not talking about "the great tribulation", but warning of the wrath of their sins with punishment.

Pretrib cited 'Jacob's trouble' of Jer. 30:7 means seven year of tribulation period. But, Jeremiah, the prophet never discuss on chapter 30 talking about "seven year of Tribulation Period". Also, pretrib does not follow Hermenuetic Rule - 'Interpreting in contextually', because pretribs pick one verse - Jer. 30:7 out of its context of the whole Jeremiah chapter 30, what the whole chapter talking about.

The only way that we can understand what Jer. 30:7 talking about, have to read start with Jeremiah chapter 29 thru chapter 30, what Jermeiah, the prophet was talking about. The context of Jeremiah chapter 29 talk about the warning to the people of Israel, if they do not repent of their sins, God will send Babylonians inavade against Israel for the judgement - Jer. 29:1, 4, 20. Then, Jeremiah, the prophet speak of Jeremiah 30:7 says, "Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it." It already fulfilled when Babylon invaded Israel, and bring them into captivity under babylon in year around 590 B.C. Then, Jeremiah says, 'Jacob's trouble', it is not speak of future seven year of tribulation period, it speaks of Israel's trouble, that day, when Babylon invaded Israel include Jerusalem, destroyed Solomon's temple, and killed many Jews, many were taken into captivity, that day was terrible for Jews in that time was in year around 590 B.C. Verse 7 already fulfilled 2,500 years ago. Then, Jeremiah said, "but he shall be saved out of it." It already fulfilled 70 years later when after Jeremiah told them, in year around 520 B.C. that Ezra, the priest brought some of the group from Babylon, return to Jerusalem, rebuilt second temple. "but he shall be saved out of it" speak of shall be freed from captivity, Jer. 30:7-8 already fulfilled about 2,500 years ago, Jews already freed from captivity under Babylon, return to Jerusalem, first Ezra, then second- Nehemiah.

Jeremiah 30:7 have do nothing with supposed future so called 'seven year of tribulation period'. It was already fulfilled 2,500 years ago!

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

I have no dispensational bias. I simply read what the text says. Look at each passage. YOu cannot say what you have said with a straight face if you ahve studied them.

Consider 1 Thess 5: There is "wrath" that follows a time of peace and safety. That cannot in the context be eternal wrath. Simply reading it removes that possibility. So what is it? It has to be tribulation wrath.

Consider 2 Thess 3: These people were confused becasue someone told them that they were in the DOL, meaning that the Tribulation had started. If Paul taught them that they would be in teh Tribulation, then what were they confused about? This is a very simple passage if you actually read it thoughtfully. The only reason for the confusion on their part was because Paul told them they would be gone before the Tribulation and someone else told them it had already started.

You don't even interact with passages. You just pronounce them irrelevant, and then wonder why you don't see the scriptural support for something. I hope that you will soon begin to study these things. It will be well worth your time.

 

Huh? Should I direct them to your "reading" of Acts 15? You very much bring your biases to the Scriptures; e.g., "Prophets agree" = Prophets are silent.

Anyway, even when I was a Premillennialist, I could see there was no support for a pre-trib rapture. Quite the opposite, really.

Keep holding their feet to the fire, Old Reg.

 

Pastor Larry, 1 Thess 5 of 'peace & safety' do not going include wrath at the same time.

Also, 'peace safety' is not speak of "sevey year peace treaty" with israel, it speaks of today's world condition, what people are doing just like as in Noah's day - Matt. 24:38. 'Peace and safety' show the picture of today's world condition, that people are doing errands, busy, activity, given married, going work, play, etc.... and enjoy their own life, what they want. Just same as in Noah's day, what they were doing.

Christ & Paul both warn us, the day of the Lord shall come LIKE AS "thief in the night" will suddenly come upon them, who are not watch and prepared, will not escape from the coming wrath judgement of God. Just like as in Noah's day, peoplewere doing errands, busy, work, play, etc. people were not aware of the flood sudden came and took them away so quickly, so, it shall be same as at Christ's coming shall be like as thief in the night.

1 Thess. 5:1-9 does not proving us the timing of the rapture. But, this passage telling us that it warning us, Christ's coming shall be like as thief in the night, those who are NOT watch and ready, shall be taken away for the judgement to cast them away into everlasting fire- Matt. 24:40-41; & Luke 17:34-37.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

DeafPostTrib,

You must understand:

When John the Baptist told the Pharisees to flee from the "WRATH TO COME", the Pharisees know what John was talking about, because they read the Old Testamanet Scriptures. They know from these Scriptures that the Day of the LORD is the WRATH TO COME. That's why Pharisees hated him because what he say hurt their feelings and exposed them what they are.

Also remember that John the Baptist is the last OT prophet and he know the whole OT Scriptures (Genesis to Malachi). He KNOWS that the Day of the LORD is the WRATH TO COME, and it begins with the invasion of Jerusalem by the Anti-Christ and the setting up of the abomination of desolation in the JEWISH TEMPLE. He KNOW and UNDERSTAND the Old Testament MUCH, MUCH BETTER than you do!! Because he read and studied them a lot in his life before start preaching the gospel of the kingdom of heaven.

All the members of the Body of Christ escape the wrath of God when they got saved. That meant no Great Tribulation for us, plus no lake of fire for eternity, too.

Deafmidweeker

 

Deafmidweeker,

No doubt, John, the Baptist knew 'wrath to come' is speak of the day of the Lord.

'Day of the Lord' does not equal with great tribulation. Both are different meaning.

Yes, of course, day of the Lord is speak of God's wrath for the judgement fall upon people who disobey or reject Jesus Christ.
Also, day of the Lord never so called, 'seven year of Tribulation period'

Of course, I am aware of Malachi 4:5 speaks of "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord." Elijah is not speak of the one of the two witnesses of Revelation chapter 11. Elijah of Malachi 4:5 is symbolic of John the Baptist as prophet.

Probably you are right that John, the Baptist was the last OT prophet. I consider, Jermeiah was probably the last OT prophet, then afterward, there was no prophets for the next 400 years before Christ birth. I believe John, the baptist as prophet, that he introduced New Testament by introduced Jesus Christ to the people of Isreal, that he told them, 'Behold, this man which wash away all our sins of world' before John baptized Christ in the river of Jordan.

You saying John, the Baptist knows and understand more than I does. Well, maybe you are right. Only God knows. Fact, that we know John the Baptist was the greatest Christian in the Church history beside Christ, as runner-up. I am sure that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit as he was fire for the Lord, preached the gospel to the people of Israel. No question, Pharisees HATED John the Baptist so much, that why he was thrown into the jail, then later beheaded.

Also, John the Baptist does not know when the day of the Lord will come, he believed Lord's coming is imminence(anytime or any moment). That why John warned people of Israel included Pharisees, that everyone must come and repentance of their sins, or will face the wrath of God to send them into everlasting fire.

No doubt, all Christians during Early Church history believed that Christ might come again anytime, it could happen in their lifetime. But, their belief does not make them "pretrib". Because they believed they must face tribulations first, because Christ says so according John 16:33.

You, many baptists include me, believe Christ might come anytime in our lifetime. I do not know when Christ shall come again, we can do is be watch and be ready all the time, because we all shall face the judgement day - Christ shall sit on throne to judge us at Christ's coming. Or, we do not know when we will die, we might die today, we ought always be ready all the times - Rev. 3:2,3.

Bible never saying that 'day of the Lord' & 'wrath to come' both are so called, "seven year of tribulation period". That is men-making doctrine according dispensationalism.

Both 'day of the Lord' & 'wrath to come' are synonmous meaning of judgement day at Christ's coming.

Also, 'day of the Lord' does not stretch into 3 1/2 years or 7 years, or 1007 years. Day of the Lord is the specific time for Christ comes to judge the world according Zephaniah 1:14-16 "The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly. THAT DAY is A day of wrath, A day of trouble and distress, A day of wasteness and desolation, A day of darkness and gloominess, A day of clouds and thick darkness, A day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers."

Clearly Zephaniah 1:14-16 tells us, 'day of the Lord' is not stretch into either 3 1/2 years, 7 years, or 1007 years, but A day is a specific event day when Christ shall come to earth in his wrath to judge the world.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Carlaimpinge: //It's amazing isn't it folks? The illiteracy MANIFESTED by these people is "wonderful". They CAN'T READ the text. They can't COMPARE the WORDS in the passges within the same book written by the same author to get the correct interpretation.//

Amen, Brother. But don't forget the SGS:
sick goat syndrome which is baaaaaaaaahd

OldRegular: "The question has been asked endlessly
on a number of threads for specific Scripture
that support a removal of the Church prior to the
so-called Great Tribulation.

TeeHee, i love propaganda. The author of the statement
knews the "question has been asked endlessly"
because he asked it. Bad case of SGS.

Aaron: "Keep holding their feet to the fire, Old Reg."

He could win more converts if he would use good logic
instead of logical errors. Everybody is noticing
the ungracefulness of bleating "show the scripture"
like a sick goat, SGS.

 

Huh? Should I direct them to your "reading" of Acts 15? You very much bring your biases to the Scriptures; e.g., "Prophets agree" = Prophets are silent.</font>[/QUOTE]Nice try, but very misleading. Go back and see what I actually said. I never said the prophets were silent. I said what James said ... that the prophets agree with what was currently going on. Don't distort what I said. Acts 15 is not that hard and I have shown that before.

That is simply dishonest. You can disagree with the support, but to say there is none is simply dishonest or ignorant. But men whose books you and I are not worthy to carry have provided support that is very well done and tightly argued. It uses Scripture very carefully and very clearly.

Aaron, It helps no one for you to make false charges about what I have said and emotional statements about the issue. If you want to talk about Scripture, then do that. Start with those passages I already referenced. And then there are plenty more you can deal with.

 

Exactly, and taht is why a post trib rapture is incompatible with this passage. In teh post trib position, the rapture comes at the end of hte Tribulation. The Tribulation is not a time of peace and safety, and no one will be saying "peace and safety." It is a time of wrath, as Revelation makes quite clear. No one during the tribulation will be saying peace and safety. That can only be said before the tribulation. When they say that, before the tribulation, then the wrath comes. But we have not been predestined for this wrath but for salvation. That is precisely why 1 Thess 5 is a pretrib passage and has no other legitimate interpretation.

Thanks for bringing that out.

 

I dealt with this several pages ago, right after I responded to your inappropriate personal attack on me. I already showed how your understanding of "one resurrection" is a denial of Rev 20 that specifies at least two resurrections (one before the 1000 years and one after the 1000 years for the "rest" that were not raised at the first), and that same passage specifies that that is the "first resurrection" something utterly meaningless if there is only one. If there is only one resurretcion, there is absolutely no point in calling it the "first resurrection." Your position doesn't even make sense.

I agree, but find it strange that you all of the sudden want to appeal to the "literal" when you have spent so much time denying it in other passages. I think it shows that you use the Scriptures to support your position, and will treat it however you need to (whether literal or non-literal) to arrive at your preconceived conclusion.

I hate to tell you, but this is completely irrelevant. It's good material, and it's correct. It just doesn't have anything to do with this topic. This passage nor this doctrine hangs on the idea of "hour." That is a red herring.

I completely agree, but as I pointed out, look at what the text says: "all that are in teh graves." What about those who are not yet in the grave? Or what about those who are no longer in the grave? You see, Rev 20 clearly teaches a resurrection of some, and "the rest" (20:5) are still in the graves. Then who will be raised? "All who are in teh graves." But it won't include those who are already raised. So quite clearly, Scripture itself proves your own point wrong.

Which is exactly what I have done, for instance, using REv 20 to clarify John 5.

Absolutely, which makes it confusing as to why some would say that the OT references to an earthly kingdom should not be interpreted literally. If Sproul followed his own rules, he would be a dispensationalist.

I have said this all along.

Again, what I have said all along, which is why I hold the position I do.

Which is why the "explicit" teaching of two resurrections in Rev 20:4-6 overrides your own interpretation of "one resurrection" in John 5. YOu have to note that John 5 does not specify "one" or "two" or "100" resurrections. IT specifies a resurrection for all in the graves, without reference to those "not yet" in the grave, or those "no longer" in the grave. Both are a possibility, depending on what one things John 5 refers to. What we can dogmatically say is that John 5 is not the only resurrection. There are explicitly revealed to us to be at least two resurrections separated by 1000 years (unless you violate rule #2)

Yes, but remember the depravity of the human mind. Logic is at best flawed by human reasoning because our minds are darkened by sin. Logic demands that miracles such as the feeding of the 5000 be false. Scripture demands that it be true, and therefore, we place Scripture above logic, and logic in subservience to the revealed word of God.

In short, you have six great principles, all of which lead to a dispensational view if you actually use them.

Yes, but see above and several places earlier for the things you miseed that change the necessary consequence.

The resurrection is mentioned in 1 Thess 4 which is in the basic context of 1 Thess 5, so you are wrong on that point, but nonetheless, these passages are not explicitly clear and demand some actual thinking rather than raw repetition. Which is why I say that pretrib and postrib are not explicit teachings. There is support for both. Overall, the support for pretrib better handles the Scriptures and recognizes key theological issues.

Why do you ignore Rev 20 and its teaching on what appear to be at least three resurrections? You can't get more explicit than some are raised at the beginning of the 1000 years, "the rest" at the end of hte 1000 years, and that is the first resurrection, clearly implying at least a "second resurrection" (otherwise why point out "first"?). You have shown your use of Scripture to be one of convenience for your position, while you overlook the Scripture that causes problems for you. You cannot have a doctrine of hte resurrection until you incorporate Rev 20. I would urge you to do so in light of rule #2 that you cited above. It is a great rule that you should use.

 

For those still confused about Acts 15, as Aaron indicated earlier, the passage is simply teaching that the restoration of the "tabernacle of David" will come "after these things," which is the Church age. In other words, James was pointing out that one could not appeal to the OT to make Gentiles live like Jews because the OT prophets said nothing that "disagreed" (to borrow from James) with what was currently going on in the church. In fact, the prophets "agreed" with what was going on, and "after these things" there would be a rebuilding of the tabernacle of David, which is a reference to the nation of Israel. To read it otherwise would mean that God would break his promise to David, since Christ the son of David is not now sitting on David's throne.

Some people just look too hard and overlook the obvious.

 

Old Regular: "Have you ever addressed any specific
question on this forum?"

Yes. Have you?

When you get done crabbing, would you pray for
my ministry. Thank you.

 

Pastor Larry: //I already showed how your understanding of "one resurrection" is a denial of Rev 20 that specifies at least two resurrections (one before the 1000 years and one after the 1000 years for the "rest" that were not raised at the first), and that same passage specifies that that is the "first resurrection" something utterly meaningless if there is only one. If there is only one resurretcion, there is absolutely no point in calling it the "first resurrection." Your position doesn't even make sense.//

Amen, Brother Pastor Larry -- Preach it!

I'm still looking for an evangelical a-mill post
from this poster.

 

Pastor Larry: //In short, you have six great principles,
all of which lead to a dispensational view
if you actually use them.//

Amen, Brother Pastor Larry -- Preach it!

I'm still looking for an evangelical a-mill post
from this poster.